Perhaps government is too big? Too expensive?
Perhaps too intrusive?
These days they tap your phones and check your bank accounts (if you withdraw over a certain amount in cash, your bank, by law, has to ‘report your activity’ to Canberra).
We all have mental images of what government actually is.
I often think of it as a tapeworm, which left unchecked will eat away at our insides.
A small benign tapeworm is probably okay, but if left unchecked it claims total legitimacy.
This unfortunately blurs the demarcation limits between what is the limited legitimate role of government and what happens when government runs amok.
Someone once commented that we don’t get all the government we actually pay for. To which a wise observer responded, “Aren’t we lucky!”
By assuming more responsibility for self-government we can get government to back off a little. We will then maintain better financial health; and a healthy dog can sustain a few fleas.
So each individual has a responsibility to ‘starve their tapeworm’ to ensure survival of the human species.
That is of course unless you depend on your tapeworm for survival and you live off political favors rather than individual effort.
This unfortunately blurs the demarcation limits between what is the limited legitimate role of government and what happens when government runs amok.”
you mean there is any legitimate role at all? this leads to the unsolvable conundrum “who watches the watchman?
Our governments could be limited to the legitimate roles of defending Australia(armed forces), internal defence(police) and acting as umpire (law courts, land titles etc).
All else could best be done privately, by individuals themselves, by contractors or by the expanded philanthropic groups who make such an important , but often unrecognized contribution to the fabric of our society.
I greatly admire your efforts in trying to bridge the gap between private life and the Government.
Right now I’m doing all I can to spread the word about the false status of climate change in Government circles but there seems to be a huge gulf. We are constantly assailed with messages from KRudd and PWong, shooting the messenger but not addressing the issue.
How can we have an open and frank debate where all sides - Govt., Opposition and the likes of Plimer etc - can interact? Surely, we as electors, have a right to hear all sides, in the name of the future of our country and mankind.
Dear Rod,
Well spoken, thanks!
There are just two sides to this ‘coin’.
There are government and big business - ‘trust us to introduce an ETS on our design.’
Actually there are high taxes and equally high trading profits to be made from this side.
On the other side of the coin are the ‘sceptics’ who say ‘think carefully before accepting this view and always beware of carpetbaggers (both political and business).
Perhaps science can solve our problems as it has done in the past and in many ways the world is a much cleaner place than it was 100 – 200 years ago.
You and I are both fortunate that we bring ‘open minds’ to this discussion as we gain further evidence to reinforce our views.
Ron
Also submitted today by a respected Australian Geoscientist….
Trading in 1 tonne units of CO2 has potential to grow into a financial bombshell. It will take a few years to gestate but will dwarf the sub prime mortgage episode. The bulk of emission traders will not be connected with energy production or emissions. The financial engineers will introduce derivatives and design a whole new range of financial products. In 10 years time GFC won’t even be a memory with the new breed of whiz kids and with the help of a few profligate banks the GFC cycle will repeat itself in a new set of clothes. All this has been initiated under the name of ‘climate change’, which will continue to change irrespective.
Minister Chris Bowen wrote recently in AFR that Australia was missing a great business opportunity regarding carbon trading. The country had the potential to become the world’s carbon trading centre. Given Australia’s per capita emission intensity and our population this could well drive the nation into a corner not unlike the current state in Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain.
i cannot see that even law and order can be legitimately provided through a coercive monopoly. forcing A to pay for B’s protection is morally suspect in the first place. if you can justify that, there’s nothing an able politician or a couple of generations of them can’t squeeze into the legitimate-minimal-government-charter.
i too welcome any shrinkage in government, but don’t concede any legitimacy to the institution. sure, the tapeworm is better off being starved than fed, but it brings no advantage whatsoever to the host, and to that extent i think your metaphor apt.
gee, i thought my comment was moderate to start with.