Here's an interesting concept.

The role of government should be limited to the following:
1. protection of the country from all forms of external threat
2. protection of the laws of supply & demand.

Have fun kitty-cats.

Thats not a government that's the Mafia.

Someone's been spending too much time listening to those whackos over at the Centre for Independent Studies.  :D

No, actually it was Philip Adams . ..well not PA himself but an interview he ran about the Koch dynasty in the USA, the founder of which was also a founding member of the John Birch Society.

How does one protect the laws of supply and demand ?

Lead, follow or get out of the way.

On most issues, government interference is of little benefit.
Things like the minister for families.
The minister for human services
The minister for sport
The minister for communities.

No benefit,  useless really.

Doctors and teachers are the experts in health and education. The public servants should serve their needs. Currently this is arse about and the professionals are seen as having to constantly adjust to government ideas.  Unhelpful.

Industrial relations, small business...again the role of government should be purely to umpire, they have no role in playing the game.

It is important to starve the beast. We should always aim to reduce taxes and reduce money flowing to Canberra.
Labor government have always tended to be bigger spending governments and for that reason alone, they are worth rejecting.
Liberal governments too have been very very poor at cutting back on their roles.
I think this is because they are no longer run by business people but are now run by career party hacks who have no feel for the inefficiency of government interference.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 10:39am:

Here's an interesting concept. The role of government should be limited to the following: 1. protection of the country from all forms of external threat 2. protection of the laws of supply & demand. Have fun kitty-cats.

Why stop there?  It's the responsibility of an individual to protect themselves and their property in the event of an external threat. I would only agree to this if the government was only responsible for protecting only national parks from all forms of external threat.

Actually, the concept is absurd.

Think about it, "protection from all forms of external threat" could easily be used to justify just about anything, from conscription to phone tapping its own citizens. Suddenly it becomes the very opposite of what was intended.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 11:29am:

Actually, the concept is absurd. Think about it, "protection from all forms of external threat" could easily be used to justify just about anything, from conscription to phone tapping its own citizens. Suddenly it becomes the very opposite of what was intended.

ACtually let me make a change to my last point. Given there won't be any national parks then there is no need for government at all to protect the nation from any external threat.   All "borders" can be privatised and everyone can look after their own dirt. 

So the government can simply exist to collect taxes for nothing. But very limited taxes, you know, just 10%. But, to do nothing with :)  Yay!

crocodile wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 11:03am:

How does one protect the laws of supply and demand ?

A rifle with a razor sharp bayonet is one way.


bogarde73 wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 10:39am:

Here's an interesting concept. The role of government should be limited to the following: 1. protection of the country from all forms of external threat 2. protection of the laws of supply & demand. Have fun kitty-cats.

Should? Yes.

BUT as we live in an Ochlocracy such a role for GOVT is impossible.  The 'Mob' would not allow itself to not exploit the minority with progressive taxation.  :(

My preferred position would be somewhere about half-way between what we have now and that stated in the OP.

How do we protect the laws of supply and demand?
By repealing the laws that unnecessarily get in their way for the purpose of benefiting one group or another.

bogarde73 wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 1:14pm:

My preferred position would be somewhere about half-way between what we have now and that stated in the OP. How do we protect the laws of supply and demand? By repealing the laws that unnecessarily get in their way for the purpose of benefiting one group or another.

So which things would you axe from the role of government, and why?

Quote:

the laws of supply and demand

There is a law already that is supposed to protect the the laws of supply and demand, it's the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 formally the Trades Practices Act.

Amoung other things it outlaws businesses from colluding to fix prices but ignores Trade Unions colluding to do the same thing.

I guess to further protect Supply & Demand, Industrial Relations requires further de-regulation.

so no health services, no education, no police and of course, no laws.

Welcome to Somalia.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 3:51pm:

so no health services, no education, no police and of course, no laws. Welcome to Somalia.

exactly.  It always amazes me why proponents of such nonsense don't simply move to the many nations in the world where such a system already exists.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 3:51pm:

so no health services, no education, no police and of course, no laws. Welcome to Somalia.

Somalia also has no defence against external threats - unless you count the pirates protecting Somalia's fisheries from Chinese poachers. Privatisation to the max. Yes, and everyone has a gun. I am surprised the LDP senator David Leyonhjelm hasn't migrated to Somalia already.

Swagman wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 1:20pm:

Quote: the laws of supply and demand There is a law already that is supposed to protect the the laws of supply and demand, it's the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 formally the Trades Practices Act. Amoung other things it outlaws businesses from colluding to fix prices but ignores Trade Unions colluding to do the same thing. I guess to further protect Supply & Demand, Industrial Relations requires further de-regulation.

Privatise it - choose your negotiator......

Abbott Lies wrote on Jul 11^th, 2014 at 4:10pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 11th, 2014 at 3:51pm: so no health services, no education, no police and of course, no laws. Welcome to Somalia. Somalia also has no defence against external threats - unless you count the pirates protecting Somalia's fisheries from Chinese poachers. Privatisation to the max. Yes, and everyone has a gun. I am surprised the LDP senator David Leyonhjelm hasn't migrated to Somalia already.

Actually Somalia is very well -protected.  Nobody wants it in its current shape.

The role of government

to screw the people

The role of the senate

to screw the government