Three suits me fine Shadow Minister and yes while you see good in Labor being blocked on some things I see good in the opposite,still the right to govern once elected needs protection from the unrepresentative swill, heard that before some place

Dear Joe,

It may be technically correct to call me an "anarchist", but I don't invest my life in a revolution, nor does any of the 3 categories you mentioned fit me in the least.

All I am saying is so embarrassingly simple: nobody has a right to rule over and impose their rules on others without their consent - that is a form of violence and must not be accommodated. It does not matter how you call yourself and whom and how many others you associate yourself with, wrong is still wrong.

yuyutsu you have always confronted, not in a bad way, me, see I fail to understand just what type of world your wishes would give us, or how, even if enough wanted it, we would get there, maybe wrong but in the imperfect world we have I firmly think the majority's point of view should lead, never the minority

Dear Belly,

I have no objection that the majority's point of view should lead, but to be able to speak of majorities and minorities, there first has to be a defined group of people. All I am saying is, that participation in groups must be voluntary, that it is so wrong to tell people "you belong to this group" without their consent.

Once a group forms voluntarily, it means that the members have agreed on the ground rules for that group. If that's a democracy, then so be it, even if it's a monarchy or aristocracy then so be it because that's what the members wanted. Either way, when I voluntarily join a group, I check that its ground rules include protections for whatever is most dear to me, otherwise I won't join.

So if the group agreed on democracy (and the type of democracy), then of course the majority of that group will determine where the group as a whole goes, still what I may do in my private life as well as what I am free to not do, remains protected by way of the group's ground rules.

The way Australia is run is not terribly bad, but there is just this fundamental flaw: participation in the group called "Australia" is not voluntary. You ask me how we would get there: draft a new constitution such that 99.999% would like or at least find it agreeable, so they will subscribe to this constitution and to the group. While many aspects of the existing constitution need not change, guarantee of individual freedoms should be included, else people would not subscribe. This constitution should allow for the remaining 0.001% to live on their land without being subjected to Australia's laws or harassed unless they threaten members of the group. If they do threaten the group, then the group can obviously act in self-defence, but note the great difference between law-enforcement and self-defence: the former may only be exercised within the group while the latter may legitimately be exercised with anyone.

Consent? well I am quite willing to think voters give their consent by voting for a party, we can gauge that by the numbers such party's get,no we will not get perfection, from any side, but what system? other than our current one? is better?in the end my simple view that minority's have far too much power in the house we talk of seems proved

Dear Belly,

The consent for a party to rule can be seen as a mitigating factor, but cannot replace the original consent to belong to the group/nation/society which has the given parliamentary/party system. In other words people say: "Since I am trapped in this system anyway, I better elect the party that minimises my sufferings from it".

You ask: "but what system? other than our current one? is better?"

Well if you and others so prefer, then the system does not need to be significantly different than the current. Majorities could still dictate everything to do with the public sphere of life and the direction of the group/country/nation as a whole.

The only necessary differences are:

1) In order to obtain the people's consent, the constitution enshrines the freedom of individuals in their private life - that is to do as they please on their own property so long as it does not impinge on non-consenting members of society; and to not be required to do any acts against their will (i.e. the unalienable freedom to and non-criminalisation of staying in bed).

2) The group's jurisdiction is only over those and their lands who consent to be part of it. Those very few who are still unwilling to join the group/nation/society despite the promises in #1 and the good prospects that ensue, are not prevented from living on their land and are not subject to the group's laws (they may still be prevented from leaving their properties onto public land or require visa-like papers if allowed to, which binds them to the group's laws for the duration of their stay outside).