What a liberal Bill of Rights could look like
|
Let’s call a spade a spade, and consider the debate over Australia’s Bill of Rights for what it really is: a political debate on how government power should be limited. So why not have a liberal, or “free market”, Bill of Rights that actually limits the power of government and protects rights that really affect us? If we are going to have a Bill of Rights — and there are good arguments why we should not — it should contain provisions such as these:
There are many other possible inclusions. Any and every tax increase the government wants to burden us with must be approved by a referendum – again, common in many US states. Nevada’s constitution puts a limit on the amount of days per year their state legislature can sit — the less time politicians sit in parliament, the less time they have to make bad laws. The ever growing number of countries instituting “flat” income tax rates recognises the responsibility for citizens to contribute equally to the upkeep of the state, and the right for individuals not to be disproportionately targeted for their money. These recommendations are undoubtedly contentious — a Bill of Rights is fundamentally a political issue. Deep down, what goes into a Bill of Rights reflects the value judgements of those that draft it — to believe otherwise is naive. Timothy Brown is a Researcher at the Institute of Public Affairs. |
|
|
|
15 Comments
Ok let’s look at these ‘rights’
a) ‘The right to retain and control all aspects of my property’:
This ‘right’ would allow me to buy a home listed on the registry of the National Trust and bulldoze it with no repercussions or consequences, beyond the cost to my pocket.
The rights of others to have an appreciation of some of the fabric of the nation’s past or a building of true beauty would be irrelevant. I assume that it would also allow me to buy a few million acres of the Daintree and bulldoze and burn them as well. I mean they would be ‘my property’.
What happens if I buy the house next to Mr Brown and demolish it for a 6 story apartment building while I destroy almost all of the value of his property by blocking all of his sun light and any sense of privacy he may have had? Surely it is my right to do what I want and damn the consequences for him?
‘The right to consultation on adverse laws’:
What is benign to one is disastrous to another and so all laws would have to be consulted on.
Mr Brown says that this consultation should only occur when there is an adverse impact, but who would determine adversity? The only way to avoid political game playing would be for all laws to only be voted on after community consultation.
The amount of legislation that is passed at state and federal levels on a daily basis would require the most amazing amount of information and feedback that the very process of government would cease.
‘The right to a balanced budget’:
This is neither something that has any relevance to the rights of the individual members of the nation nor has it proven to be a success in the US states where it has been enacted. California is now bankrupt and unable to provide basic services to its citizens, fundamentally as a consequence of another of Mr Brown’s wish list the ‘right’ for tax increases to be limited and/or to require voter approval.
When are the conservative thinkers in Australia and the rest of the world going to move beyond the rubrics of ‘good government is small government’ ‘government as small business’? Governments are obliged to provide a certain level of service and care to the citizens of the nation state or council area who elect it. As we require more from governments, those governments must grow.
As we move through a severe economic crisis governments are required to use deficit funding in bad times and to store up reserves in the good times. This is something that is built into the very nature of modern social democratic economies and based on the evidence over the last 12 months would seem to work.
So Timothy Brown is a RESEARCHER for the IPA. Researchers collect hard factual evidence and then build a case for or against a particular proposition. Plenty of propositions in this piece; very short on facts to back them up. He says Nevada has limited sitting days. So what? Is Nevada the greatest state in the US? If so on what criteria is this judgement made? The implication by Brown is that it must be good. Why?
California has a system of referendums that can influence any decision to be taken by government. Californian government is now a dysfunctional basket case. Poor old Arnie just doesn’t know what to do.
Which are the ever growing countries instituting flat tax? How well are they doing? Why are they doing it? Who within these countries is pushing it? No explanation by Brown. Just the assumption that it must be right because they are “ever growing.” Rabits are an ever growing population in my back yard, problem is they eat my lettuces. That certainly isn’t good.
Of course not a word is said by the Brown or the IPA about the ever growing quantities of corporate welfare provided by the taxpayer to rich corporations in big coal and big agriculture. I wonder where that money will come from when we have a flat tax?
This article is typical IPA, lots of sweeping conclusions, facts that are presented which have no connection with the argument and conclusions that are based on the underlying predjudice that people should be able to do whatever they like with their money.
Maraget Thatchers said :
“…And, you know, there’s no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first.”
Pure IPA! However, Big Maggy went on to say:
“… It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours.”
She does have a bit of a quid each way here. (“and then, also”) Was she saying that we would only look after our neighbours after we had fixed ourselves up or could we have a crack at the two thing concurrently?
The problem is that when you live in a global village many of your neighbours are on the other side of the world it’s difficult to help them without some collective arrangement such as government. The IPA however, does see the need for Government to provide an army and police to protect their sacred property rights from our international neighbours and the home grown prolateriate. But that’s not surprising, like all conservatives, double standards are OK as long as they serve your self interest.
Timothy, are you on crack?
None of the three ‘rights’ you’ve raised are rights recognised under any UN Convention and for good reason. Can’t put it better than the guys above me, other than to say, way to contribute to the Bill of Rights debate, Timothy. And Crikey, who is this guy and why am I reading his crap in the daily news?
Nadia David are you on crack Who gives a shit what it says in the UN convention, I know most Soverign nations dont. The UN=fail, upholding property rights is a major stumbling block for countries and implementing a bill of rights. Fuck this global village bullshit, the nation state is still the back bone of global politics and we should be doing everything in our power to fuck of this one world citizen shit.
Australia is my country, my property rights are best represented by the people who govern me, not some egalitarian usless organisation like the UN. The legal ramifications of inserting a Bill of Rights is best seen with America’s second ammendement.
BTW all the above posters, you just made the arguements both for and against a Bill of Rights, you can argue your examples both ways.
the best arguement for not having a Bill of Rights is our comparatively clean Human Rights record.
Wow Made in Australia, nicely put. Guess what you’re looking for has nothing to do with a Bill of Rights, kinda like what Tim Brown was talking about.
Um MADEINAUSTRALIA. Are you massively rude?
Don’t answer that as it’s merely a rhetorical question. The answer is obvious. Yes you are.
I am a little amazed that you think my argument is focused on the value of a Bill of Rights, as I think I quite clearly state my position as being opposed to the ‘rights’ Mr Brown would like to impose on us and nothing more.
Your property rights are indeed best protected for by government legislation and the impact of your neighbours’ rights to control their property as espoused by Mr Brown would potentially eliminate any enjoyment of your property.
Crikey, it is a slow news week but why are you giving space to IPA people such as this (and Sinclair Davidson) who seem to be in a time-warp of delayed Reaganism/Thatcherism, and who present no reasoned argument for the dumb cases they are trying to present?
And Crikey you should also be moderating the incivil, not to say incoherent, rantings of that blogger. Redirect him to A.Bolt’s website.
As said above, California is the example of where too much democracy/too little responsible government has driven the richest society on the planet into near chaos. Schwartzenegger is actually holding a garage sale of surplus government stuff to try to keep the place running.
Meh on all counts my points stand
Is this a ham-fisted shot at satire. What a waste of space ; Brown by name ,brown by nature
Good joke post, Tim. So you fished out a shopping list of pro-business lobby points and scrawled Bill of Rights across the top.
If this is what passes for serious discussion or intellectual rigor at the IPA, you really should not be calling yourself a think-tank.
I thought this is some kind of spoof or parody. Why is it that everyone is taking it so seriously? Am I missing something?
“Nevada’s constitution puts a limit on the amount of days per year their state legislature can sit — the less time politicians sit in parliament, the less time they have to make bad laws.”
We are talking about a Bill of rights, aren’t we? Or am I missing something?
Why would Nevada’s desire to keep reps as engaged in their primary jobs - that is, outside the House - have anything to do with a Bill of Rights?
I’m really starting to get tired of reading this kind of absolute rubbish in the newsletter. Between this and the “real explanation of what happened at Chappaquiddick,” I’m wondering whether there’s some editorial difficulty distinguishing between an alternative point of view and mere nonsensical tripe.
I deal with property and heritage issues a lot. Sometimes property has to be procured, so fair compensation should be paid. Not just the financial aspect as valuer General assessments can be conservative and you need to be able to argue for fair market compensation plus any other factors should ahve a monetary assessment attached to them.
Heritage is or could be quite simple. If the community wants it preserved then it should be prepared to pay for ownership or substantailly contribute to the upkeep of that property. There are buildings worth preserving, those that are critical should be in public ownership and those that are conributory should be subsidised by the taxpayer. It is an effective way to test a properties value. There is way to much expectation on property owners to preserve buildings designed to last 60-100 years at most at thier own cost due to the whimsical opinion of some heritage advisor usually employed by the taxpayer in some way. No checks or balances on the fininacial and otherwise distress it causes owners, and I can assure you it would be different if it was thier own money they were playing with.
AS for flat tax - no problems if the benefits that are afforded to the wealthy through company, trust and associated tax structures are applied across the board. What a joke - how many wealthy people actually pay thier fair share? Just set up a comapny and send it broke, declare bankrupt and move onto the next one - no care or responsibility. I even hear of wealthy people claiming centrelink payments as a result of these structures - and that is disgusting.
As Bill Maher said and the Institute of Public Affairs should follow:
“… New Rule, in two parts: A) You can’t call yourself a think tank if all your ideas are stupid. And B), if you’re someone from one of the think tanks that dreamed up the Iraq War, and who predicted that we’d be greeted as liberators, and that we wouldn’t need a lot of troops, and that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, that the WMD’s would be found, that the looting wasn’t problematic, and the mission was accomplished, that the insurgency was in its last throes, that things would get better after the people voted, after the government was formed, after we got Saddam, after we got his kids, after we got Zarqawi, and that the whole bloody mess wouldn’t turn into a civil war…you have to stop making predictions! …
You know, it’s a shame what happened to think tanks. They used to produce valuable, a political analysis. But partisanship crept into many of them. … Administrations don’t just come up with something as stupid as “If we leave now, they’ll follow us home.” No, they have someone from a think tank say it first. It’s a way to lend respectability. The same reason a titty bar has food. I hear.”