Dear Hasbeen,

I fully agree and tick all your boxes. No acceptance of rules - no benefits. This includes no roads, no water, no sewerage and no police protection of life or property.

Moreover, a state may also, if so it wishes, reserve the right to use the money which it prints to its citizens/residents/visitors, and even by way of international agreements, reserve the right to use foreign currencies as well to the citizens/residents/visitors of all agreeing countries.

It is still possible upon negotiation, if both parties agree, to reach an agreement whereby non-accepting individuals can purchase some of these services for agreed sums or commodities. And if they want to leave their private enclaves, pass through public territory and travel on its roads, then they need to obtain a kind of a tourist/visitor-like visa, which would probably cost them, as well as to comply with all the laws for the duration of their travel.

«I just can't find a suitable unclaimed island»

Here we embark onto an interesting but difficult discussion over what exactly constitutes a legitimate claim on land.

Some claims are obviously legitimate, for example if several generations of ancestors have been intensively cultivating the land and buried there.

Other claims are definitely illegitimate, for example where a captain reaches a new shore and despite having seen just a little through his binoculars or stepped on only a small fraction of that shore, not to mention having cultivated or developed almost none of it, declares the whole island or continent that is encircled by that shore to belong to his master/king - that's ridiculous nonsense.

Then there is much grey area in between where the legitimacy of claims is not very clear.

Yuyutsu,

"Other claims are definitely illegitimate, for example where a captain reaches a new shore and despite having seen just a little through his binoculars or stepped on only a small fraction of that shore, not to mention having cultivated or developed almost none of it, declares the whole island or continent that is encircled by that shore to belong to his master/king - that's ridiculous nonsense."

Does that refer to Australia?

Dear Is Mise,

This refers to all claims over islands, big or small, that in essence answer this description.

What, in your view, exempts the British 18th century claim over Australia from this description?

This mornings SMH tell us the government may face a new senate threat 4 senators are forming a new block, each from a different party, two at least elected by voters to a party they are no longer in,any honest view must ask how do those who voted for the feel? my thought is betrayed,my case to remove or reform the senate seems strengthened by this news

Dear Belly,

What you described can (and does) occur in the lower house as well and within most electoral systems, perhaps except the Chinese...

An obvious solution is a semi-direct democracy.
Another is to allow parties to sack MPs (possibly subject to certain conditions), then bring in the next on their original list.
A milder version is to grant the funds (for staffers, etc.) and speaking-time allocations to parties rather than to members.

Reform seems more likely than my choice removal, so let the voters have the power to remove senators,those voters from the state that elected them,we can throw thoughts and ideas around, wishes and wants, but what ever we do must have majority support, I doubt our senate has or ever will have that