Article 05: The Invisible Wrist

What is alternate self interest?

In 1776 in The Wealth of Nations Adam Smith outlined the idea that self interest (or everyone taking care of themselves and their own) would drive an economy to prosperity. This is because no one voluntary enters into a transaction unless it is to their benefit (ie you want those shoes and the sports store wants your money).

He explained that the butcher and the baker provide food for our dinner not because of their generosity, but because of their own self-interests. Smith explained that even in acting selfishly, people are often "led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part" of their intentions 1

This is an incredibly robust motor because consistently through history people have had a keen interest in themselves.

Some claim however the dark side of the the invisible hand is that individuals become selfish, looking only after their own wealth. I believe however, critics overlook a principle I call the invisible wrist.

As with the invisible hand people look after their own interests, with the invisible wrist people next turn to the needs of people to whom they have something in common, or to whom they can relate to. It may also be termed alternate self interest, as people feel concern for others whom they feel they are akin to.

These examples are generalities, but are true more often than not :

• people who have lost a loved-one through cancer will often support cures for cancer research
• a mother with a 3 year old will be motivated to help after seeing footage of a toddler maimed in war torn city
• a wealthy inventor donates money to a program for educating young scientists
• we vividly remember when Hurricane Katrina hit in Aug 2005 killing 1,836 people, but how many can recall the earthquake in Yogyakarta that killed 6,234 this year? (May 2006 - it was in Indonesia) 2

Why do we do this? I believe it is because we can put ourselves in their shoes, and can empathise to how they might feel.

But the invisible wrist is also a motor, much like the invisible hand is. It motives people to look after those around them, once they have looked after themselves.

The invisible hand would fail society if individuals were only concerned with accumulating wealth, but we are also creatures of emotion, and most people once they gain an excess for their own physical needs, begin to fill an emotional hole by greater charity to others.

A real beauty of the invisible wrist grows from the diversity of human connections. One person in the city can relate to another of the same religion in the country, an elderly man can relate to a struggling young teenage from the same small home town, a lover of theatre can donate to the development of it. Age, culture, locality, common tragedy or abuse are all potential bridges.

Let us not fear the invisible hand of self interest. Just because the government lets us be free to be selfish, doesn't mean we will be selfish - for attached to the invisible hand is the invisible wrist of alternate self interest.

Related Keys: 05-LIB 11-SUP 15-LIM 17-PRO

Footnotes
1. Adam Smith - Wikiquote http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adam_Smith#Investments_.26_Choice
2. May 2006 Java earthquake - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_2006_Java_earthquake

Article 04: Free Market Essentials

what a free market needs to deliver the goods

I am a big believer in the free market as the best system for a prosperous society, however, I wouldn't consider the market as truly "free" without the following elements:

Justice - businesses and consumers free from physical intimidation, fraud or dishonesty

example: A retailer of fruit would be wary to set up competition against a long established supermarket if it knew there would be no protection from, or fair punishment against, death threats to them.

Equality - government to show no bias toward any entity

1. all entities free to enter a market

• when an industry has a monopoly or inflated prices, it inevitably attracts competition, due to the good chance of profits. The greater the profits margin the greater the attraction. Thus, if free entry is allowed the market will (in time) automatically correct exorbitant prices. Look at what competition such as Optus, Primus and Dodo have done for telecommunication prices.

2. any entity free to leave a market

• no company should be compelled to provide a service or to stay in an industry. Business should be free to choose what they sell, where they sell and when they sell.

3. no subsidization of industries by the government

• subsidies are basically the government taking the peoples money and using it to prop up industries that are not economically viable or have been mismanaged. It is a form of economic inequality before the law and retards business adaptation and flexibility.

4. no taxation on a specific industry except for reparation for damages (see price linking)

• this is the opposite of subsidisation - it punishes industries that are performing well.

5. no bailing out a company that goes bust

• just as business should be able to reap the rewards of a success, so also they should take the risk of failure. Why should the peoples taxes be used to fund failure, when they had no part in the decision making?

6. no investing in industries to start them up

• if a business has a chance for success and profit, investors will naturally be attracted.

Free Trade - the government not to inhibit buying, selling, deals and agreements between entities

• government and bureaucratic involvement only slows down and adds unnecessary overhead expense. (Yes, all departments come with a price tag). Businesses have incentive to work by the most profitable and direct methods - let them be reward for their ingenuity. The law is there to make sure citizens are not involuntarily harmed in the process.

He who dares not offend cannot be honest


Thomas Paine
(Attributed)

Question: Why can't so-called "sin taxes" be used as sources of general revenue?

Question from Anonymous:
Regarding price linking: would it not be fair to impose a tax simply as a disincentive, in cases of cigarette or poker machine taxes? Red light camera fines are a form of punishment, not taxes. Polution-related taxes such as petrol taxes are fair, but what kind of clean-up activity could the government perform when it comes to air polution?Why can't so-called "sin taxes" be used as sources of general revenue? Is it not better to tax the bad activities than the good ones, such as income earned?

Answer from Stewart:
Hello again Anon.
Moral vs Legal :
When you start to use punishment are a disincentive for things that might be bad for you, but not necessarily hurting anyone else, you start to mix the Moral and the Legal or unseparating "the church and state". The state is trying to make you do good. It is a very dangerous game. If freedom doesn't mean the right to make bad decisions for yourself what does it mean?

If you smoke, and it is not around others, what has that to do with the government?

Air Pollution Tax
A tax on air pollution is really only an intermediate solution. In reality, pollutants should not be allowed. However, we have got ourselves in a bit of a hole and need to climb out of it. A tax on pollutants is a good way for 2 reasons. One, it creates a cost disincentive. Secondly, the money generated is used specifically toward a solution (ie non-polluting technology).

Sin Taxes
Isn't the idea of society to have it full of good people? The problem with sin* taxes is that the government has a vested interest in the people continuing to do wrong things. General revenue is a bucket with holes in it - it will always spend what goes into it.

Punishment should be primarily about reparation. What do you do if the "sins" drop 50%? Are the fines doubled to keep the revenue? Justice should be even handed, not too much and not too little, and make the punishment fit the crime.

* I use sin here to mean victim-less crimes, ie where the only one hurt is a capable adult making the decision.

Question: The difference between Disassociation and Discrimination

Question from Anonymous:
Would you elaborate further on the key: "14-DSC: The right to Discriminate", and the differences between that and "12-DIS: The right to Disassociate".Can you particularly outline how government, company and individual rights/responsibilities differ in regard to 14-DSC (if at all), considering the differing degrees of power/authority that each is able to exercise over individuals (both within and without the organization) and thus over society as a whole.

Answer from Stewart:
Hi Anonymous - thanks for the question.

Discrimination is a sub-category
In the introduction of 20 Keys I mentioned that there were 2 pairs of sub-principles. Just as the rottweiller and chihuahua are sub-breeds of what we call a dog, so the right to discriminate (12-DIS) and boycott (13-BOY) fall under larger umbrella of the right to disassociate (14-DSC).

The general rule is that disassociation works both ways. (ie you can choose your employer and your boss can choose you, you can choose where you buy from and the shop should be able to choose who it sells to)


Government vs Private
With regard to disassociation, there are only 2 categories: 1. Government, and 2. Private (including citizens, businesses, associations).

Why allow discrimination for private entities, but not government? Well, it's really about choice. I can't really choose which government I am going to use, or which Police force I want. Thus the government and it's branches should treat us equally before the law (02-EQU).

The private sector is a different matter. Say a business snubs me because of my religion or culture, I have a chance for recourse. In return, I can take my shopping elsewhere, I can tell my friends to avoid them, I can write to newspapers and report what meanies they are. Just as they can disassociate from me, I can from them.

What is the difference between StewartGlass.net and The Noble Numbat?

The Noble Numbat (this blog) is primarily used as a workbook and diary. It shows you the nuts, bolts and reasoning behind how I think. Policies are up for comment, the diary is used to opinions on current issues and I also have articles to discuss principles that apply to society and government.

StewartGlass.net is my official website. After ideas have been worked over and alternative perspectives discussed the formal policy is put on StewartGlass.net.

Policy: Education

Simplify. Simplify. Simplify.

Education's very important to our society. I support the totally free education of minors in Australia. Like many of my policies, I want to see the power given back to the people.

Simply Education

The solution is incredibily simple. Take the entire education budget and divide it by the number of students (in Years 1 to 12). If my figures are correct this would currently be $7870 per student per year. ( $26 billion + 3.3 mil students 1)

Schools are then paid directly from the education department according to the students enrolled. Simple. The power is then essentially transferred from the government and bureaucracies to the parents. Schools would need to provide good service and keep trust with the parents to keep the students - and hence the funding. Schools would need to adapt to the priorities of parents to stay viable.


What are the benefits of this plan?

• the bureaucratic parts of the Education Departments are avoided
• no jumping from program to program according to new ideas from politicians or interest groups
• the money stays at grass roots level (ie via the parents)
• incredible flexibility - schools can adapt directly according to the priorities of the parents
• competition - good schools are rewarded by more students, bad schools loose students and the money that goes with them
• the parents values, rather than the States, are taught in the schools
• schools can co-operate or network with other schools, as they please, to run joint programs
• schools are directly rewarded for thier own frugality or ingenuity

What about students in remote areas?

Students or schools that require additional help due to special needs will need to be assisted from thier communities, charities or parents, as is the case with all welfare. I believe though, as there is to be a minimal government administration, there will be more money available. A lower tax regime will also mean that more discretionary money is available for citizens to donate. Remember, after the Irish, Australians are the most generous people with regards to charitable donations.

You oppose tax for welfare, then why not education?

I think education for minors should be federally funded for 2 main reasons.

No 1 Education is a great equaliser. It helps break the poverty cycle. No people or minority will perpetually stay oppressed when they have access to education.

No 2 For democracy to work, literacy is required. The people cannot make informed decisions and keep the government accountable if information cannot be accessed by most of the citizenry.

Related: Key 04-EDU: Education for Minors

References:

1. Dept Education Science and Training: Budget Information 2005 at a Glance > Schools

Question and Answer

If you have a question you would like answered regarding a specific policy, please leave that question here as a comment.

I will endevour to answer it upfrontly and honestly in a future posting.
I can also be contacted via StewartGlass.net

Regards,

Stewart

not yet sufficiently fashionable

Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason


Thomas Paine
British political writer and activist
Common Sense (1776)

Policy: Environment

We only get one earth. Human habitation and nature need not be opposite sides of the spectrum. A sustainable balance is acheivable. We can respect the environment we live in and still keep civilization.

Six of the 20 keys form my environmental policy.

06-C+R - Choice and Responsibility
People and companies are responsible for their own actions (pollution, waste products, noise etc)

05-LIB - Liberty
People and companies are free to do as they wish, on the condition it does not affect others.

11-SUP - Support
By unifying, citizens can effectively support specific environmental causes. These groups can purchase lands, create sanctuaries for fauna, buy old growth forests, promote education on the environment etc.

16-JUS – Reparative Justice
Companies and people should be accountable for reparation of environmental damages. This could range from responsibility for the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill to adding a tax for petrol relative to proven damage to air quality.

17-PRO – Property Rights
Landholders, both large and small, are able to use their land as they see fit – providing it does not directly affect their neighbours. For example, a land owner could cut down a patch of trees near the edge of his property, but if this causes eroded soil to wash all over his neighbours property the first land owner would be liable to fix the problem.

20-TRN – Transition
I anticipate some measures should start immediately, with all implemented within 5 – 20 years.

Examples of policy

- Growers of Genetically Modified foods would be required to provide barriers (depending on the plant type) to ensure that neighbours crops are not infected.

- A tax on fuels that cause environmental damage. This tax should be kept separate to other revenue and be used only for the reparation of the damage. This will help fuels reflect their true cost, making other cleaner fuels more cost effective. If a company introduces measures so pollution is not created this tax should not apply.

Nature
Nature, by it’s very nature, does not require human help. It only requires us not to impose on it.

Government should not interfere with natural cycles of species.

Human Impact
Humans, just by the fact of their existence, will impact on the surrounding land. What is required is to minimize damage. You can’t have 1 million people living on the Adelaide Plains and not expect more water usage or lands to be used to grow foods. I believe though, there is a right way and a wrong way to live with the earth. The right way becomes obvious, because it is sustainable.

Property rights in agriculture are important because it holds farmers accountable. I believe most people living on the land are aware of this. They want to farm and make a profit, but they also want their grandkids to be able to do the same - on that same piece of ground. It doesn’t do them any good to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

Waste
Bill Mollison, a co-founder of Permaculture said “You don’t have a snail problem, you have a duck deficiency!” and “waste is an unused resource”.

Businesses are adaptable by their very nature. I envision that if make industries accountable for their own waste they will find ways and partners to whom this waste is a resource. Hence businesses will develop a symbiotic relationship with other businesses.

International Obligations
Australian companies should be accountable for their overseas management in these areas.

Policy: Price Linking

All taxes should be kept within their own sphere.

For example:

• petrol taxes should be used to clean up or prevent damage to the environment (ie air pollution or the development of solar technologies). It might also be used for roads, but should not be used for welfare as this is totally external to it's sphere.
• poker machine taxes, if they must be charged, should be used solely for rehabilitation of gambling addicts
• taxes on cigarettes, if they must be charged, would be used to fund lung cancer research or treatments.
• Red Light Camera fines would be kept for victims of car crashes, or for education in safe driving

The goal of the price linking is to create more closely a user-pays system. This stops governments from profiteering with hidden tax regimes. You can only put so much into Gambling Rehabilitation before extra money will not make extra difference, thus taking away the government's incentive to approve or disapprove extra poker machines - as they are not gaining revenue from it.

The two beauties to price linking are:

1. Flexibility - a 5 % increase in driving with a particular fuel would create 5% extra revenue for roads, or cleaner fuel research etc. It self regulates.
2. Accountability - because funds are drawn from with in it's own sphere, it creates internal accountability. This prevents a "false economy". (ie cheap fuel that causes damage to the environment does not reflect it's true cost compared to another fuel slightly more expensive which is clean)

In brief, price linking means effectively that smokers pay for the possible consequences of smoking, dangerous drivers pay for the damage they cause, and so forth.

Related: Key 06-C+R, Key 16-JUS

A government's job is to protect citizens from others, not from themselves.

Policy: Child Care

The government should not be involved in child care – either subsidies or institutions.

A parent makes the choice to have a child, and so should be responsible for it’s upbringing. (see Key 06-C+R)

Those who struggle to care for children or are required to work to live should seek assistance through other sources – particularly family, friends or charitable institutions. (Key 11-SUP and 19-FAM)

Policy: Abortion

I am totally opposed to abortion except in very special circumstances.

The key to the issue is if the fetus is living. To me it seems sufficiently clear that an unborn baby is a living human, and because of this a mother or any other person does not have the right to kill the baby. It seems irrational that a fetus suddenly takes on life because it is on the outside of the womb rather than inside the womb.

A woman does have a right over her own body, but that right ends when it impedes the right of the unborn human to live.

I acknowledge there may be rare cases where an abortion may be a necessary – for example if having the baby will risk the life of the mother.

Stewart for Senate

I have decided to run for the Federal Senate in 2007. I do so as part of my efforts for a smaller and simpler government in Australia.

My basic philosophy on governments and their roles can still be viewed at 20 Keys for Governing.

In brief I am in favour of limited taxes, reduction of regulation, liberty, and real honesty in politics. I am against any government involvement in any sphere outside of those that are truly communal ( ie. defence, roads, police, justice etc). I wish to see governments powers of a non-communal nature returned to The People - where they belong and where they will be better managed.

If you support these measures I ask for your efforts in the next 12 months to help me change government in Australia.

Official Website: StewartGlass.net

Related Phrases: Stewart Glass - Independent South Australian Candidate for the Australian Federal Senate 2007 / 2008. Not a member of the Liberal Party, the Labor Party (ALP), the National Party, the Greens, the Democrats or Family First.

Key words: Senate Candidate South Australia, Senate Candidates for South Australia, Senate Candidates SA, Australian Politics, Adelaide, Independent South Australian Senator, SA Senate, S.A, Libertarian, environment, Australian Senate, Federal Senate, Independant, Federal Election in 2007 or 2008, small government, simple government, smaller government, simpler government, "SA senate candidates", xenophon, onkaparinga, south australian senate candidates 2007

Article 03: Why I Prefer the Preferential

In elections the Preferential Voting System is a real asset to democracies

Preferential is where on your ballot you number the candidates from your best choice "1" down to your worst option "5" (if there are 5 candidates)

Preferential voting gives a level field for new candidates and ideas, and breaks down the duopoly of a 2 party only landscape.

Vote without Risk

Example of the people of Colourville:
100 people live in Colourville. 40 like yellow and 60 like blue. Their current leader is Mr Purple, but behold, this election a new person is on the seen - Mr Tru Blue. Also running again is Mr Yellow. Without a preferential system most people would vote for the entrenched Mr Purple, even though they prefer Mr Blue. Their fear is that not every one knows about Mr Blue, and that if they don't vote for Mr Purple, Mr Yellow will get in with his loyal 40 followers. But since Colourville has the preferential system things are different - 40 people vote for Mr Blue (with Mr Purple as their second choice). The other 20 Blue People vote for Mr Purple with Mr Blue as their second choice.

So what happens? Since Mr Purple has the least primary vote (20) his votes go to Mr Blue bringing his total to the full 60 votes - vs Mr Yellow's 40. The net result is the people of Colourville got a leader closer to what they wanted. They got a real Blue rather than a Purple, even though he was less well known.

Party Preferences are "Suggestions"
It is common around election time for political parties to trade preferences -The Yellow Party may say to the Green Party "I'll put tell our supporters to put you second if you tell your supporters to put us second". Then they produce cards which are handed out at polling booths how to vote along their party lines. But you don't have to follow their "advice". Often their greatest rival they will tell you put last, so they have less chance of getting in. My suggestion is to do your homework, and if you vote Yellow, put them 1st, and then Orange 2nd and Ochre 3rd.

Remember preferential voting done properly keeps the big powers on their toes - and lets you vote for your best candidate without risk.

See, when the GOVERNMENT spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when the money is left in the hands of TAXPAYERS, [who] knows what they do with it. Bake it into pies, probably. Anything to avoid creating jobs.

attributed to Dave Barry (US Columnist)

Waking a half mat. Sleeping one mat.
Rule the nation, a fistful of rice.

No matter how many people you kill, countries you steal, fortunes you plunder, or titles you earn…
You only cover a half a straw mat when you sit, one when you sleep, and your stomach only holds a fistful of rice

Kazuo Koike + Goseki Kojima
Lone Wolf and Cub

Article 02: Why Land is Bananas

Why Land is Bananas - 15 Oct 2006

Before the cyclone hit Queensland in March 2006 you would pay $4kg for bananas. Now you pay around $11kg. What bought this monumental shift?

This is simply the law of supply and demand. High demand + small supply = high prices. Small demand + high supply = low prices.

And when it comes to land we are a few bananas short of a bunch. What’s that you say? How can land prices be high when you know if there is one thing Australia is full of - its land? What about those broad meadows you saw recently? Did it sink into the sea one night – Atlantis style?

Well, not really. Even with the land right in front of your eyes, the reason remains invisible.

Let me introduce a couple of little men called “Urban Boundary” and “Land Zoning”. This mischievous pair, sponsored by the State and Local Governments has chained up huge tracts of privately owned land.

Land Zoning means the government tells you what it can be used for i.e. Rural, Residential, Industrial. The outcome of this is that a land owner cannot split up their block and sell it off. Urban Boundary is the artificial divide that the State Government has put saying “this is country” and “this is suburbia”.

So although you may own the land you do not control it. But what does ownership mean if not control? It’s like buying a car from someone and then finding in the glove-box a notice – “this vehicle may under no circumstance be driven on a Sunday”.

Now this Urban Boundary may sound good but you are not going to stop the Urban Sprawl unless people stop having kids. The other alternative is Sardine City as promoted by their other catch phrase – “Urban Infilling”. Basically this mean when you look at a map of the city and you see gaps, these are potential “urban infills”. Eventually this may mean the park around the corner from you.

One side effect of these policies is the reduction of block sizes. Now this is fine if you are retired and have an empty nest, but a 350m2 doesn’t leave much room for kids to kick a footy, and if Mum or Dad are cooking dinner and can’t take them down to the park, the kid probably ends up watching TV or playing a video game. Thus one of the consequences of the loss of liberty in the property market is its contribution to childhood obesity.

Consider also these points:
 at the least the State Government has a vested interest in the land tax it receives from land sales. The higher the land price the more the State Government gets.
 The LMC (Land Management Corp. – the land selling arm of the State Government) can make more money by the slow release of land than by flooding the market. It’s a bit like diamonds – they remain expensive because for a long time the market has been monopolized, and the supply deliberately limited.
 The SA government totes infrastructure cost as a reason for planning restriction. Yet houses can function independently (sewers, electricity, water) as they have for many people for many years. If you move to the country, I do not think you can demand the same services as in suburbia, but why not let the people weigh-up the infrastructure costs when considering to move? It is true that an upgrade of roads are required if large numbers move to more of the fringe, yet if the government doesn’t provide proper roads what does it provide? If large numbers are moving, let the funding move with them.
 I am not saying that farmers need sell their land, nor that a bigger block is for everyone, nor that people should be forced to move from the city. What I am saying is this is a choice for the people to individually make, not for government.

And when did the government ever start making a better choice for your family than you did?


Links:

No Opportunities on the Property Market - Aug 2006 - by Alan Moran

There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as caring and sensitive because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he is willing to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he will do good with his own money— if a gun is held to his head.

attributed to P.J O'Rourke

Your federal government needs your money so that it can perform vital services for you that you would not think up yourself in a million years.

Dave Barry (US Columnist)

Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.

Thomas Paine

20 Keys for Governing

20 Keys for Governing

In this article I want to outline the key principles that dictate all my
policies. Included are 2 pairs of what might be termed sub-principles, meaning,
they really just clarify the fundamental principles.

I believe these keys can be broken into 4 main groups: the 3 founding principles
of a right to life, liberty and property, and a group of important considerations.

An important paradigm is required to correctly understand these keys. The fruits of these principles you do not have a right to be given, but should be protected from others taking, take for example, the first key (01-LIV) the right to life. If you were to sit on a footpath indefinitely, government or society should not be legally required to bring meals for your sustenance. However, it should be obliged to defend you from harm from gangs or such, or to give you justice if you were beaten. In the case of the second key, (02-EQU) Equality before the Law,
specifically employment by the government; no quota should be employed to dictate that a certain percentage of the police force should be women or of a particular ethnic group. However, when 2 prospects seek employment in the police force they should be chosen without bias to gender or race, and chosen on their supposed ability to fulfil the job.


Here then are the 20 keys briefly described:

01-LIV: A right to Life

Every person has a right to live and be protected from attack.

02-EQU: A right to Equality before the Law

The law should treat all consistently without regard to race, culture, gender, political view or wealth.

03-VOT: A right to vote

Each non-minor citizen should have the right to vote for, and participate in the government.

04-EDU: Education for Minors

This key I find the least justification for, yet I believe necessary to give each a fair opportunity for the ability to live a reasonable lifestyle, to accumulate property and participate meaningfully in government.

I include it primarily to save any group from remaining oppressed for more than a generation.

05-LIB: A right to Liberty

People should have all liberty, until it interferes with the liberty of another.
A trivial example: I have total freedom to swing my arm, but that liberty ends when I walk up to another person.

06-C+R: Choice and Responsibility

Individual choice = individual responsibility. If you are doing the choosing you should be taking the responsibility for that choice. Societies become less-effective when one group makes the decision and a separate group takes the responsibility.

07-M+L: Moral and Legal

Legal Law and Moral Law are different things. One of the fundamental errors we make in contemporary society is to mix these. All law should be moral, but not all morality should be legislated. Often our knee-jerk reaction to something wrong is to look to what the government will do.

Wrongs that are coercive in nature (i.e. one person forcing another – taking away their liberty) should have the safety net of justice by the government (if necessary). Unforced actions should not, and can be effectively addressed by the following 7 keys.

The separation of church and state is a physical embodiment of this key.

08-OPI: The right to hold and express opinion

On the level of a society this means freedom of people to express their opinions in the press, internet, flyers etc. It gives people the right to hold offensive opinions, criticize the government or support associations. It gives people the right to peaceably protest any issue as they see fit.

09-ASS: The right to Associate

All peoples should have the right to associate with any other willing person.
The next 2 keys are examples of this right.

10-UNI: The right to form Unions

People should have the freedom to form associations, unions, clubs, religions that do not strip others of their own liberty, and should be able to do so without recrimination from the government.

11-SUP: The right to Support

Individuals have the right to support whatever cause they please. In fact, charitable acts are a moral obligation of individuals of any society. Charities are a superior avenue for assistance compared with government assistance.

12-DIS: The right to Disassociate

Just a people have the right to choose their associates, it is imperative that individuals have the right to exclude others. By this I mean people should be able to form Exclusive Men’s Clubs, or a club that is particular to an ethnic group. Whether this is immoral or not is irrelevant, it should remain a legal right.

13-BOY: The right to Boycott

Boycott means to cease to deal with someone, more typically to cease to deal with an organization or business for moral reasons.

As a form of disassociating citizens have the right to choose whom they have economic relations with. Example: I don’t like Crinkleknee Supermarkets because I believe they treat animals inhumanely, thus I should have the liberty of not buying from them, with the hope that they will improve their practices.

Boycott is an effective tool that can be used to replace government intervention.

14-DSC: The right to Discriminate

Just as citizens have the right to support, they also have the right to discriminate. Companies, associations, religions (but not governments) should all be free to discriminate. Legislation can never control peoples thoughts or attitudes in any case, and trying to enforce this creates fruitless regulations. Better methods for addressing racism, for example, is education, virtue and support groups.

15-LIM: A Limited Government

A Governments job is to do only what a person or group cannot do effectively without it. As Thomas Paine said: “government even in its best state is but a necessary evil”. Government is indeed a necessity, but it is less effective in administering many services compared with the alternatives available.

Governments should therefore focus on its core functions (Roads, Defence, Justice, Policing ); doing more starts to impede on the liberties of the society.

16-JUS: Reparative Justice

Protection of life, liberty and property is a core function of government. Justice is necessary for reparation when these are stolen from a citizen.

Our judicial system is not what I would see as the ideal: it takes too long, and is too expensive.

17-PRO: The right to own and control property

Universally any individual should have the right to own property. Control of an object is a good indicator of true ownership.

Unfair taxation corrodes the right of the people. I believe the government should be very thrifty when it comes to spending the citizens’ money on their behalf.

18-VIR: Virtue

A government is only as good as its people.

Even the worst system of government will work if the people are good. A perfect
system of government will unavoidably collapse if it is filled with unethical citizens.

Though moral and legal (07-M+L) should be separated, always remember, virtue is
the glue that makes a society prosperous and happy.

19-FAM: The Family is the basic unit of society

No society survives long that doesn’t recognize the family as the basic building
block of society. As a whole, families are a superior way than government to
raising emotionally healthy people and good citizens.

20-TRN: Transition to a better Government

Changing from our current mode of governing to a better way cannot change overnight.

When evolving, consideration should be taken into account that industries have been subsidized, a welfare state created, a bureaucracy created.

This key is one of the trickiest. Just as a child doesn’t change to an adult upon 18 years, sometimes things need to be implemented in half measures or with temporary compromises.

A balance needs to be struck between taking things too slowly and taking things
too fast. Stability should not be the only consideration, but it still needs to be considered.

Stewart Glass
Aug 2006

Article 01: Junk Food Advertising and Kids

The best society understands the different roles of morality and legality. I define morality as that which is right, and legality as that which is enshrined as law. Both serve their purposes, and we should understand each.

All legalities should be moral, but not all morals should be legal. Let me give an example - we should be considerate of our neighbours, but there should not be a law that says we have to take them chicken soup when they are sick.

Legality's main goal should be to protect us from others. Morality teaches us how we should act to others.

When we start trying to make everything that is moral into that which is legal, we start trying to force people to be good.

There is a current debate about the advertising of junk food to kids. The moral law says we should eat healthful foods and exercise, with junk food an occasional occurrence. But should we legislate to make people eat healthily?

Kids are minors and are only developing decision making, so I will look to the parents. Do the parents of kids have their hands tied? Moral decisions like these should be left to people, in this case the parents on behalf of the kids. Will we legislate to control advertising of unhealthful foods to adults too?

What is the best way to a solution?
Sometimes we want to take shortcuts in life and we take knee jerk reactions.
Parents have a selection of non-legislative actions they can take to this moral issue.

Firstly, the TV could be limited. Parents can teach their kids by example and discussions about healthful foods, exercise, proper sleep etc.

The boycott is a powerful tool. Write to the worst offending shows or networks. Tell them that you and other boycott members will not be watching their shows, until they alter or remove that form of advertising to kids. Write to the junk food provider. Tell them you and the attached list of people will never visit until they stop advertising to kids.

What are the consequences of the wrong way?
When we take the shortcut, there are often invisible side effects.
Consider these:
1. Added bureaucracy in defining what is healthful or not
2. Court cases in defending the right to show an advert in a show
3. Junk food manufacturers taking alternate forms of promotion anyway
4. Taxpayers paying for added bureaucracy
5. Additional costs to manufacturers being passed onto the consumers
6. The rate of obese kids remaining the same

When we legislate things that should remain individual moral decisions, it comes from our desire to control others, even if it is well intentioned. And it doesn't work.

The separation of church and state comes from the idea of separation of the moral and the legal.

Lets leave people the right to choose poorly.

State Elections today. I will be going to the footy with my son in the evening. Ironically I will be listening to the elections on the radio at the footy, while my friend will be listening to the footy at the elections. :)

Hi, I'm Stewart and welcome to my blog.

Welcome to The Noble Numbat

Hi there.

My name is Stewart Glass and I am 33 years old. In Onkaparinga, I have lived in Happy Valley, McLaren Flat and Woodcroft.

Enter www.stewartglass.net to go to my homepage.

The Noble Numbat is a series of articles and quotes on my policies toward a limited government, and how we, as a people, have given too much power to our governments.

I have been married for 9 years and have 3 kids (2 boys – 8 and 6, and a little 3 year old girl). A few years ago we adopted a mortgage too. We were fortunate enough to buy after the property boom L

I like people - I just enjoy meeting them and hearing their views on life. I am honest, upfront and impartial. I am not intimidated by pressure groups pushing for agendas that are not in the societies best interest.

I don't belong to any political party or lobby group and have never been employed by the government.

Key Tags:
Limited Government, Libertarian, Liberty, Australian Politics, Politician, Onkaparinga, Happy Valley, Stewart for Senate 2007, Federal, Stewart Glass, Small Governments, South Australia, SA, State Parliament, Independant, Independent, stewartglass.net, The Noble Numbat, Thomas Paine, John Lilburne, Thomas Jefferson