Peter Martin is the best political columnist in Australia today. Hands down. The Sydney Morning Herald and the TheAustralian would do well to imitate his style, subjects and approach.

Peter has another fascinating article, this time on research to determine if people take external effects into their purchasing. This is compared to Australians when polled saying they would prefer better services to lower taxes - to which the political policy is, no; you will have lower taxes and like it.

Personally I believe in both. However, a analogous study was done in NY where fair trade products were tested against different price points. The study's authors found that sales increased as the price was increased. (more)

Federations are defined by having a national character and a federal character. For instance the House of Representatives in Australia's parliament is organised with a national character while the Senate has a federal character. The House has equal sized electorates and single members, while the Senate has the states as its electoral boundaries and each state has an equal number of members. So the Senate represents the states, which are the federal components of the Federation, while the House represents the Australian people, which is the national character of the government.

One of the innovations of American constitutional design was to put the national and federal characters into tension so that the national government would not grow to consume the states, yet have enough national character that the states would not assert themselves over the national government. This vertical balance of powers in the federation was designed to protect liberty and cemented through constitutional limited government.

One of the blind spots in Australian politics is that federalism is ignored as a technology to ensure liberty and natural rights. Too often people assume the role of government is service delivery, not limited government, and seek to order the political structures accordingly. (more)

An interesting article by Stephen Pinker which suggests that violence is lessening in the world and over history . This is consistent with Harpur's and Deniehy's republican thesis that decreasing tyranny and increasing liberty allow individuals to express themselves morally - which includes less violence. (more)

One of Charles Harpur's insights is that political inequality, and the corrupt actions of government, limit the moral expression of the people. Many think of government and morality in terms of the government's monopoly on violence and law being used to enforce morality - when in truth it is the opposite that occurs. By the restriction of legislation and executive force it limits the ability of those under such restraints to act morally. (more)

In the 1850s Victoria chose a democratic upper house, while NSW chose an appointed one. It was seen as a victory in NSW as William Wentworth had wanted a titled upper house - an antipodean House of Lords in the tradition of King, Lords and Commons. Much energy was expended on stopping that constitutional plan. Harpur has an interesting point of view on political technology from that period. In his eyes, if the technology has proven corrupt, then it is unfit for government and a new one should be implemented. (more)

Charles Harpur and Dan Deniehy both saw human progress in moral terms. Their view of the end of human development was moral perfection where violence, war, unethical behaviour etc all became morally impossible. (more)

Australian Republican organisations tend to have tiny half-lifes. They split as soon as they are formed. One of the reasons for this is the high level of individualism in the Australian Republican doctrine: another reason is that the Australian variant of republicanism has largely repudiated the 'political' as an intrinsic component of human progress. (more)

Republicanism is focused on political technologies in order to maximise liberty and minimise tyranny such that tyranny is non-existent. The philosophical under-pinnings for republicanism is liberalism which also has the goal of maximising individual freedom. Republicanism is the political science that under-pins liberalism. Since they are heavily focused on the individual and the technologies to support maximal liberty the counter-argument is that they have blind spots to hostility outside of the individual and politics. Conservatives like to call this the cultural wars, but it also encompasses social division and national division. (more)

A mate of mine made this tongue in cheek comment the other day to a Canadian fellow;

Why do you hate America so much that you decided to be born somewhere else?

Which is an appeal to the absurd in nationalism and the arbitrary nature with which it deals with individuals, citizens and non-citizens alike. Charles Harpur believed that mankind's natural destiny was moral perfection and it was the imposition of our social and political frameworks which acted as the main deterrents against mankind achieving that goal. He called it "for the faith that is in them" and made the point that Australians, once free of the inequality imposition of an aristocracy, will discover the equality in themselves. This republican philosophy was also the basis for Dan Deniehy pillorying William Wentworth's bunyip aristocracy when Wentworth tried to create a titled upper house in NSW. (more)

Australian Republicanism is a political egalitarian philosophy. It makes no room for the social or political elevation of an individual or group through claims of divine right, accidents of birth or the physical imposition of coercion and tyranny. This leads to universal principles of political rights. (more)