My interest was sparked by John Roskam’s article “In Government, Less Is So Much More” - Institute of Public Affairs, 27 January 2017.
He writes: According to the results of an international opinion poll released a few days ago, there's an "implosion of trust" around the world. The findings of the 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer reveal just 37 per cent of Australians trust the government. The comparable figure in the United States is 47 per cent, and 36 per cent in the UK.
Despite all the business bashing of recent times, Australians have more faith in business than their government, as 48 per cent of Australians say they trust business. Only 32 per cent of Australians trust the media. To put that into perspective that's only one point higher in trust that the Russians have in their media, and it's 15 points lower than that for America.
Social researcher Hugh Mackay is right when he says: "The big picture for Western societies, but especially Australia, is that respect and trust for institutions in general is in decline."
But he's being unduly pessimistic by concluding: "That's not a healthy attitude for any society."
In fact, there's a lot to like about the poll results…
He sees the two ‘golden oldies’ regularly recycled by politicians – becoming a republic and abolishing the states – are not really the answers to the problems…”
Continue here… http://www.ipa.org.au/news/3592/in-government-less-is-so-much-more
Freedom and Government
The following notes come from The Social Credit Training Course:
The legislative or Governmental system has to do with the rights of individual members of society and their relationship to one another. Its function is to ensure that the collective will of the people prevails in all matters affecting the rights of individual members of society, their relations with each other, and the relations of the group with other groups. Within this function is included what is broadly termed the “maintenance of law and order.”
In his great book, “The Road to Serfdom”, Professor Hayek defines the Rule of Law as follows:
It means that the government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand – rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances, and to plan one’s individual affairs on the basis of such knowledge…. Within the known rules of the game the individual is free to pursue his personal ends and desires.”
Let us take one excellent example of the Rule of Law:
We all know and understand our road laws – travel must be on the left-hand side of the road, etc. There are lights at certain cross roads. Sign-boards indicate where different roads go. Every individual is free to go where he likes on the roads so long as he obeys the rules laid down. He knows that if he crosses a main intersection against a red light, he will have action taken against him.
It will be noted that this Rule of Law is not restrictive. It is designed to protect every individual. It increases his freedom of action and makes for greater individual security.
Now it is obviously quite legitimate for individuals to use their political system to obtain a Rule of Law for their roads – but it would be an interference with the individual’s rights if the political system were used to try and compel individuals to travel on the roads only at a certain time, to lay down where the individual could go, and what route he could take. This would be what is often described as Arbitrary Law.
The political system can, for example, be used to get a reduction in taxation, but it cannot be used to decide how the individual’s increased purchasing power which might result from reduced taxation, can be spent, as it is impossible for any planning board or other group to decide in advance all the detailed desires of other individuals. The result can only be serfdom.
It is the manipulation of the political vote that is being used to introduce serfdom today. And the tragedy is that it is being done in the name of democracy. We have therefore got to use the political vote – i.e. obtain genuine political democracy – to ensure that we preserve the degree of economic democracy we still possess and to expand it. Once we realise the comparatively restricted use we can make of the political vote as – compared with the economic vote, we can see why so many people say it is very hard to get the people united on any political issue, as different people want different things. It will generally be found that the different results people want are not capable of being provided by the political system, but only by the economic system.
The genuine function of Government is not to pass a never-ending stream of laws for the purpose of controlling individuals, but to lay down general simple rules under which individuals can live their own lives – so long as they do not interfere with other individuals.
The following are some of the basic issues upon which Social Crediters should be concentrating their attention:
l. The destruction of responsible Government by increasing political centralisation and the delegation of Parliamentary authority to an irresponsible bureaucracy which controls the individual by Regulations and decrees. (This was written in 1985… ed) It is necessary to understand clearly the process of what Lord Hewart, in his great classic “The New Despotism”, termed “bureaucratic lawlessness”. The fact that a Government has to delegate power is a clear indication that it is trying to handle matters which should be handled by local governments or which do not come under the control of the political system.
2. The destruction of the value of the economic vote by heavy taxation for increasing Government activities, compulsory “Welfare State” schemes, and the gradual elimination of free enterprise.
3. The destruction of genuine individual Rights, which have been safe-guarded by Common Law in all English speaking countries. Here in Australia we also have a written Constitution which has been a barrier to the lust for centralised power at Canberra.
Unless the Social Crediter can deal effectively with all matters relating to the above issues, he cannot be termed competent.
If political democracy is to be made a reality, it is absolutely essential that the initiative in all policy-making come from the electors themselves. It is surprising what interest can be generated in an issue by only one or two electors taking action. These active electors, those who resist totalitarian policies, should be sought out by the competent Social Crediter and shown how to fight. In the last analysis, it is only that great spiritual attribute of man, the desire to be free, and individual initiative, which can result in the destruction of the great super-structure of totalitarianism that is being erected all over the world…”
Learn more by going to The Social Credit Training Course lectures found here…