The Federalist Papers were published by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in New York during 1787 and 1788. They were published to sway opinion in New York into ratifying the new American constitution. One of the most influential of the Federalist Papers is No.10 which was written by James Madison. It discusses the role of faction, liberty and the process of government to control the excesses of faction.

Federalist Paper No.10

Ron Chernow, who authored the most recent biography of Alexander Hamilton, believes that Federalist Paper No.10 is the most influential of the eighty-five Federalist Papers published between 1787 and 1788 in New York. Although all were written under the pen-name "Publius", the predominant author of the Federalist Papers was Alexander Hamilton who wrote fifty-seven of them. James Madison wrote twenty-one and John Jay five. Additionally three were collaborated on by Hamilton and Madison. Federalist Paper No.10 was written by James Madison.

James Madison was one of the most influential of the American founding fathers. The son of a plantation owner from Orange County, Virginia he studied at Princeton and became involved in local Virginian politics before being involved in the Continental Congress. Madison later represented Virginia at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and had a leading role in the drafting of the Constitution of the United States.

After the constitution was ratified, Madison became a leader in the Congress, drafting legislation that created the Executive Cabinet positions and later drafting the legislation that would lead to the Bill of Rights. Madison became the Secretary of State during the Thomas Jefferson presidency before being voted as President in 1808. Madison's terms presided over the war of 1812 with Britain.

Madison's devotion to the principles of a republic and liberty was uncompromising and despite the pressures of the war he refused to enact legislation or measures that would compromise this. Unlike later presidents such as Abraham Lincoln of George W. Bush who both suspended habeous corpus in times of pressure on government. Madison believed that adherence to the principles of a republic gave America an advantage over Britain and compromising that through government oppression would make the US no better than a monarchy. He was proved correct as the US was able to thwart British attentions on the US.

Faction

Central to the tenth paper in the Federalist series is faction. The argument Madison makes is that faction and liberty are inseparable. Instead of focusing on trying to eliminate the causes for faction, the choice of government can control the effects of faction. Madison makes the argument that the means to control the causes of faction is to stamp on dissenting opinions, and remove liberty. In other words oppress until all the polity is of the same opinion. This is totalitarianism. Madison dismisses this as being against the nature of man;

As long as the reason of man continues to be fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed

Faction is a normal part of liberty, and wrapped in the fallibility of humankind. John Stuart Mills makes similar arguments as to why freedom of expression should never be curtailed. An individual can never be sure that they are not suppressing a truthful opinion as humanity's reasoning abilities are not perfect. Madison uses a similar argument to Mills as to why liberty cannot be abolished in a functioning government;

Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

From this Madison concludes that liberty and faction are essential in any healthy government system. What isn't healthy is the violence of faction. Madison argues that controlling the effects of violent faction can be achieved through the Republican model of government.

Controlling Effects

Any individual needs to be concerned about government using the apparatus of the nation-state for the purposes of coercion. Madison was also concerned with this issue, he saw the violence of faction being when a group of individuals created a faction with a common interest that was adverse to individual rights, the rights of minorities and against the common good. Madison's view of common good is similar to the Aristotlean notion of virtue being necessary in the ruling elite.

Madison also shares Aristotle's disdain for the workability of a democracy. Aristotle wrote that a democracy fails as the individual is too distracted with the day to day trivialities like working and eating to have an understanding of the public good. Aristotle believes that only an idle class have the time and hence virtue to devote themselves to the public good and the glory of the nation-state.

Madison writes that humankind naturally falls into animosity and this clouds the ability of individuals in a democracy to be aware of the common good and articulate legislation for that purpose.

So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities that where no substantial occasion presents itself the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their infriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.

Another flaw that Madison identifies in a democracy is that it allows individuals to be their own judge in their own interests. This assumes that an individuals self-interest will blind an individual to the public or common good. A notion that individuals are not capable of public good without the coercion of the nation-state. Madison writes;

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own case, because his interest would certainly bias his judgement, and not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.

Madison uses this argument toward the notion that a democracy is flawed as it allows individuals to be judges in their own case. This supports the Aristotlean view that an understanding of common good and hence virtue is exclusive to the idle and ruling classes. This is a repugnant meme. If taxpayers had greater control over where their tax contributions were going, it would over-whelmingly be to common good programs such as public transport, medical research and far, far less on farming subsidies or the industrial-military complex.

Property

The founding fathers were the propertied elite of the colonies in the America at the time. Those that weren't propertied were in professions or private practice in industries such as law. For many of the southern founding fathers, the definition of property extended to humans as well. Washington took seven slaves with him to New York when he became president. Both Jefferson and Madison did not dissolve their slave properties after ratification of the constitution, nor when they were president. Madison in Federalist Paper No.10 writes that property and its unequal distribution is the most constant source of faction. He is undoubtedly correct, that the new federal government kept in place the practice of allowing one human to own another is testament to this.

Madison argues from the opposing points of view of creditors and debtors. Legislators are subject to the advocacy of their constituents, and if this advocacy is biased by a faction, then there is no justice in the legislation, as the larger party or faction will drown out the smaller factions. With the recent changes in the US system of advocacy being dominated by lobbyists and money, the public good has been ignored by legislators in areas such as intellectual property. Legislators have created new forms of property and property crimes in an ever expanding definition of what can be owned by corporate interests.

The Republic

The Federalist Paper No.10 argues that a republic is capable of controlling the effects of faction, more so than a democracy. The reason put forward is that a system of representation is more capable of protecting the rights of individuals and minorities, as well as being better able to balance the needs of the public good. Madison notes that representatives are more divorced from the issues being raised by factions and consequently better able to create just legislation that is compatible with rights and the public good.

Madison does not explore the issue that representatives concentrate the access to the power and coercive nature of legislation. In essence they are a point of failure for a system that ignores the needs of the electorate and public good. Recently in the United States the system has been skewed by the abnormal power of lobbyist groups who have been exceedingly successful in having representatives further their causes. Lobby groups such as the RIAA and MPAA have successfully had representatives expand what can be called property, the ownership of this artificial form of property and the property crimes stemming from it.

In the essay Madison argues that a danger of a representative system is in having too few representatives as the passions or corruptions of an individual representative can skew the system. From this Madison argues that the republican system scales better and works more effectively the larger the republic is.

Conclusion

The environment that Madison wrote this in needed to explain how the new constitution and republican form of federal government would have greater stability than the previous continental congress. The paper also needed to explain how the system would protect against the competing factions drowning out the rights of minorities and the public good. It also needed to explain how it would halt mob rule. All issues that had posed problems in the self-government of the colonies previous, during and after the revolution of 1776.

Madison sees faction as an unavoidable in a polity of maximum liberty, and consequently seeks to minimize the violence of faction through the system; in other words controlling the effects of faction. Representative government is the process by which Madison seeks to temper this.

cam

More Federalist Papers Articles

Short Essay on Federalist Paper No.57
Is The Electoral College Fair?
Multiple Magistrates in an Executive Council
Three US Presidents on Partisanship
The Federal Character of the Electoral College

The debate over a Republic in the last thirty years has become one-dimensional and focused on removing the Queen of England as the Australian Head of State. Obviously there is no place for a hereditary position in the constitution of a free people. The Australian Republican Movement has limited their campaign and advocacy to this aim; but the history of Australian Republicanism is broader. Australian Republicans have been democrats (as opposed to plutocrats or aristocrats) as well as republicans; constantly seeking wider enfranchisement, greater political equity, improved political process and the eradication of arbitrary government.

The Success of Republicanism

When NSW and Victoria started making the first moves to self-government, the Australian Republicans of the time concentrated on expanding the involvement of citizens in the process of government. In contrast, the monarchists sought to exclude the popular voices, and add barriers to citizen participation. The most obvious of these was William Wentworth's attempt to establish a titled NSW upper house. It was defeated due to political campaigning by Australian Republicans, but unfortunately the NSW Legislative Council remained an appointed house until the 1970s.

The monarchists in the 1800s tended to be conservative, saw Britain as the mother country and all Australian legitimacy stemming from that connection; they were also often landed. This was the squatocracy's as Dan Deniehy called them. The squatocracy dominated the NSW Legislative Council for a long time, and helped establish the practice of nomineeism. Another non-merit process which Republicans like Deniehy and Charles Harpur fought against.

The Legislative Councils around the country were often skewed heavily to ensure that the popular houses, the Assemblies, could not over-ride the interest of the landed or propertied Councillors. This malapportionment and inequity was targeted by Australian Republicans such as William Lane who advocated one person, one vote. It is interesting to note that this has been a long campaign, and even today, Western Australian remains in the throes of a malapportioned Legislative Council.

In the 1930's P.R. Stephenson advocated that Australian growth, socially, culturally, economically and politically; remained impossible while Australia was subordinate to Britain. This has been the basis for late 20thC republicanism which has focused on eradicating external interference on Australian affairs, especially judicially, legislatively and constitutionally. The enacting of the Westminster Act in 1941 and the Australia Act of 1986 are examples of Australia ensuring its legislature and judicial can act without interference.

The hardest to change is the constitution, and as a consequence the Queen of England remains embedded in our system of government. The other area where Stephenson's philosophy has not been adopted is in foreign policy. The current Imperium is the United States. Australia followed the US into Iraq with the same uncritical blinders as we followed Britain into war in WWI and WWII. It was just accepted that because our "Great and Powerful Friend" was at war, then so were we. There was no debate about our own interests.

Twenty First Century Republicanism

South Sea Republic is now the most prominent place for the advocacy of 21stC Republicanism. The topics covered are within the traditions of Dunmore-Lang, Harpur, Stephenson. South Sea Republic incorporates the dual republican and democrat traditions, where a Republican Constitution is but one part in a system that has wider inclusion of those being governed. Where innovative processes such as sortition, ratification, crowd wisdom and even technology are debated to ensure a more perfect policy and political outcome. This is no different to Deniehy advocating the most advanced political technologies of the day such as one person, one vote.

Australian conservatives argue that the highest form of social order comes from a national purpose, and a national culture. The individual must subjugate themselves to this in order for there to be national prosperity, and consequently individual prosperity. Australian Republicanism focuses instead on the political structures and involvement of the individual in those structures. It is through this inclusive process that higher, and more perfect social organisation is found. Aspirations are discovered through the interactions of individuals, secure in their maximum liberty.

This is the goal of Australian Republicanism. Without maximum liberty, prosperity is impossible. Each liberty taken, and coveted by government adds an inefficiency into the process of prosperity. Without maximum inclusion only inefficient forms of social, political and economic organisation are possible.

Conclusion

Australian Republicanism is arguably the most successful political movement in Australian history. The Australian Republican tradition incorporates the Republican values such as liberty, rights, equity, merit and separation of powers while borrowing heavily from democrat and Chartist traditions to ensure the integrity of the political and parliamentary process. Republicanism has crossed partisan divides, and been a constant source of innovation in Australian politics.

In 2005 we find Australia largely free of malapportionment, appointments in popular houses, nomineeism, and other non-representative aspects of government. Monarchists often argue that Australia is a republic already, and there is no need to change anything. This is testament to the success of two centuries worth of Republican advocacy. But Australia cannot truly be a Republic until the Australian Constitution adheres to Republican principles.

Government suffers from entropy. Parties constantly seek absolute power by collapsing authority around them. For the Australian Republican, who is equal parts republican and equal parts democrat, the battle to ensure maximum liberty, maximum enfranchisement, freedom from arbitrary government and the integrity of the political process; is never-ending. Republicanism is an ongoing process, constantly seeking to perfect our social organization and moral structures through maximum liberty and universal participation.

cam

In Muslim nations that go to the ballot box, such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh, extremist political parties get crushed by voters. Those extremists are not able to earn more than a few percent of the vote. Most people want good government, the electricity to work, the trains to run on time, low crime and so forth. The people are wise, and with a proper outlet to let that wisdom flow to government, superior outcomes prevail. Voters choose secular political parties over religious ones, and moderate parties over extremists.

Saudi Arabia and Iran are the two best examples of failed states which breed extremist views. Both use the state to advocate an intolerant religious monoculture that is the basis for their authority. To reject the state, dissenters also reject the monoculture by choosing extremism. Lately Australia is establishing the "National Security State" and expanding the "Shadow State". In addition the Australian conservative commenteriat are seeking to establish a monoculture. These place us closer to the conditions that make Saudi Arabia such a problem. Only the principles of Australian Republicanism can save us now.

Got Secularism?

Much attention has been focused on Muslims as the perpetrators of terrorism. This assumes that Muslims are a homogeneous group, dominated by violent fundamental beliefs. This is incorrect, and a lazy stereotype. It is only on the fringes of Islam that there is a conflict with modernism, but this is not unique to Islam, witness the Christian reaction to stem cell research in the United States . Democratic nations such as Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia have overwhelmingly adopted secular governments when given the power to vote.

Indonesia contains the world's largest Muslim population in a nation-state. Nearly eighty percent of its 220 million population identify themselves as Muslim. In the 2004 Indonesian elections the Islamic party, Partai Persatuan Pembangunan (PPP), was only able to gain 8% of the vote in Parliament and 3.1% in the Presidential race. In both cases losing out in majorities to secular candidates and parties. The Islamic Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa (PKB) managed 10% of the parliamentary vote.

Bangladesh has a population of 144 million. Approximately eighty three percent of the population view themselves as Muslim, with Hindu being the next largest religion. In the 2001 elections , the Islamic political parties were not able to gain a majority, with the conservative Bangladesh Jatiyabadi Dal and social-democratic Bangladesh Awami League earning 87% of the vote combined.

Malaysia has a population of 23 million with approximately sixty three percent In the Dewan Rekyat (House of Representatives) election of 2004 the main secular party, Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu, collected 64% of the vote. The Islamic Party, Parti Islam se Malaysia, managed 15% and the democratic party, Parti Tindakan Demokratik, got 9%.

As the election results in Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia show, the people are wise and choose secular government over religious government. The will of the people is translating to the form of government in these democracies. The major problem is many nations that mix religion and state, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran is that they are either monarchies, autocracies or non-functioning democracies where voters are given no choice other than the existing ruling party.

Salafism and Saudi Arabia

Salafism or Wahabism is an Islamic movement traces its origins with the theologian, Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab in the 16thC. Salafism seeks to purify Islam by returning Muslims to the original principles of Islam. Salafism seeks to remove innovations in religious practice and idolatry (polytheism). Muhammad bin Saud established the House of Saud, which today rules over Saudi Arabia. Saud married bin Abdul's daughter, and combined his rule with Salafism to establish wider legitimacy for the Sauds. Salafism was not a widely popular religious movement in Islam until it was propagated by the House of Saud, especially in the latter half of the 20thC with Saudi Arabia's immense oil wealth.

The 1970s saw a different dynamic enter the Middle East, many of the secular regimes, such as Egypt, Syria and Iraq failed in their promise, and became single party states designed to maintain the power of the present leaders. The autocratic governments also stifled all dissent. Opposition was either forced out of the country, driven underground into silence, or into violent extremism. Iran took the third path and a Shia theocracy came to power through revolution. Iran used the wealth and power of the state to expand the influence of their religious doctrine through the Middle East.

Salafism is based on Sunni beliefs. The Shia and Sunni denomination's of Islam are the two largest and represent a sectarian split based on who the successor was to the Prophet Muhammad. In the 1980, Saudi Arabia used the wealth of the state to expand Salafist teachings. From the 911 Commission ;

In the 1980s, awash in sudden oil wealth, Saudi Arabia competed with Shia Iran to promote its Sunni fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, Wahhabism. The Saudi government, always conscious of its duties as the custodian of Islam's holiest places, joined with wealthy Arabs from the Kingdom and other states bordering the Persian Gulf in donating money to build mosques and religious schools that could preach and teach their interpretation of Islamic doctrine.

The 1980s saw the expansion of madrassa . These are Islamic schools, most of which teach a non-violent purist Islamic tradition. A significant number, however, act as recruiting agents for violent extremism. Many of the worst madrassa were in Pakistan where mujahideen where trained for the Afghan war against the Soviets.

It is obvious that the rise of violent extremism arises from several sources. These are;

• State sponsorship
• Governments which derive their legitimacy and authority from religion
• Non-democratic regimes that do not tolerate dissent

It should be noted that the first issue, state sponsorship of violent extremism is not limited to Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan. During the Afghan war the United States funded and trained many mujahideen's in Pakistan. This is a classic example of "Blowback" .

Violent Extremism and Saudi Arabia

Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi national until Saudi Arabia revoked his citizenship. He came from the wealthy and large bin Laden family which has also disowned him due to his involvement in Al Qaeda and terrorism. Al Qaeda came from the mujahideen operations in Soviet invaded Afghanistan. Bin Laden established the ideologically driven group to create conflict between Islam and the West. Al Qaeda used terrorism for this purpose.

Bin Laden set up terrorist training camps in Afghanistan where it was believed that in the mid-1990s, seventy percent of recruits in the camps were from Saudi Arabia. This may have been related to Bin Laden's offer of mujahideen to protect Saudi Arabia being rejected in 1991 and Bin Laden soon after issuing a self-styled fatwa condemning the House of Saud and demanding Muslims drive American forces out of Saudi Arabia. The high number of Saudi nationals being involved in Al Queda translated into the September 11th attacks with fifteen of the nineteen hijackers being Said Arabian.

The recent Brookings Institute Iraq Index publication has another interesting statistic. Of foreign insurgents killed in Iraq, Saudi Arabians account for sixty eight percent with ninety-four having been killed.

It is estimated that the Iraqi insurgents number approximately 20,000. Of these around 1,000 of them are foreign fighters. In comparison to other nations, Saudi Arabia is over-represented when it comes to violent extremism.

Secular Liberalism

The Saudi Arabian example shows the secular liberalism is not the problem, it is state supported religion and autocratic secularism that is the cause of disruption and disturbance in the world. Saudi Arabia is one of the more extreme samples. Disaffected Saudi's are unable to change the state through voting, their monarchy being totally opposed to any form of popular merit. The Saudi schools teach a non-tolerant form of Salafism, and that is exported by Saudi money to madrassa internationally.

Since the state and Salafism are entwined, those that reject the state must also reject the Saudi form of Sunnism, and often do so by embracing a more radical, extreme and violent interpretation of Salafism. This added to the problem of sixty percent of the Middle East being under the age of twenty-four leads to a massive problem that is having global repercussions.

Once again Indonesia is the great modern hope, through the people voting their will, Indonesia has established a secular democracy that is embracing secular liberal and liberal democratic traditions. It is important to note, that it was the wisdom of the people that led Indonesia to the position. In 1999 the Indonesia people overthrew the Suharto dictatorship through a popular uprising, and then voted in secular, rather than religious parties.

Indonesia wanted good government, and gave themselves the environment to avoid the problems that Saudi Arabia, Iran and other parts of the Middle East face. When Indonesia was wracked by terrorism, it was quickly squashed through civil trials that were conducted openly and publicly. Terrorism was quickly deemed criminal and not tolerated by the justice system. But rather than military trials which are done privately and in secret, the civil judicial system has popular legitimacy and the involvement of jurors. It is far more legitimate than any military tribunal.

The Anti-Reformation

Labor and Liberalism won in the 20thC. The major parties in Australia are social-democratic. Both left and right continue to expand the state and social services. Under the supposedly conservative Liberal government in Australia the percent of GDP collected by the government in tax has increased from twenty-six percent to nearly thirty-five. Liberalism also won. Multi-culturalism, which is a logical outcome of maximum liberty was accepted, as was economic liberty through economic rationalism.

After September 11th, the United States decided to pursue terrorism as a military problem. The United Kingdom and Australia were quick to follow. All three nations realigned their domestic focus to what appears to a permanent "National Security State". No longer are cities, or nations defined by their society, their culture, their economy or their liberty; they are now defined by how secure they are. Advocates of the National Security State go as far to claim that a city or nation that is insecure is a failed one.

Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom have expanded the private space of government by giving new powers to the "shadow state". A Republic comes from the Latin term publis . This means that government occupies the public space, not the private space of the despot, the tyrant or the autocrat. Western nations have used terrorism and the "National Security State" to collapse the public actions of government and hide them from public view.

In the United States, the Transport Security Agency has laws that the public must follow, but cannot read. Laws are now becoming secret . This makes them impossible to follow. The PATRIOT Act allows the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to act without civil oversight, or the knowledge of the suspect. The Act also enables the mixing of domestic and foreign intelligence; a result of the United States deciding on a military solution to terrorism.

Attacking Speech and Liberty

The United States has not acted to outlaw free speech, but the United Kingdom which has recently faced home-grown terrorism, now is. Foreigners that engage in hateful speech can be deported. From a BBC article ;

New grounds for deporting and excluding people from the UK - including fostering hatred or, advocating and justifying violence to further beliefs. The powers will cover statements already on record. Consultation on the plans will finish this month.

Implied in many of the measures is that multi-culturalism has failed, and that the "National Security State" must be a unitary nation-state with one culture, one central government; and one purpose - security. Australian commentators have lead the attack on multi-culturalism, seeing secular liberalism as the feeding and breeding ground for terrorism. This rabid rhetoric is used as an excuse to establish the unitary "National Security State", Devine writes ;

Kowtowing to the unreasonable demands of intolerant minorities trying to impose their will on the majority is not going to safeguard Australia from "fanatical religious hate, exclusion, death and terror", as Parker seems to think. Quite the opposite.

Concepts of tolerance, freedom and loving one's neighbour as oneself don't exist in a vacuum, any more than "ethics" exist without a moral framework.

Trying to erase the long-established culture of Australia, permanently rooted as it is in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and replacing it with vapid, secularist nothingness is not going to help. It simply creates a vacuum for radical Islam to rush in and fill.

This is the authoritarian anti-liberal nonsense at its absolute worst. Devine's advocacy for one culture and one nation fail, simply because her vision of what constitutes a viable society, culture and nation cannot be achieved without government intervention. Lack of liberty is an unnatural state for a society and requires high energy and cost by the government to enforce. This is why autocracies are always doomed to failure, the more liberties that are taken, the higher the cost to the society and the more energy that is dissipated in maintain authoritarianism.

In the United States, the devoutly Christian Senator, Rick Santorum, was on radio recently discussing his book . Santorum rails against the Libertarian wing of the American Republican party. Like Devine he claims the Judeo-Christian tradition is the only way the United States can remain a viable society and culture. This requires government policy to follow religious doctrine. Like Devine, Santorum fails it, their vision of society is not possible without government's monopoly on violence and coercion to prop it up and sustain it.

Conclusion

Terrorism has been a foreign policy issue for Australia, with Indonesia taking the hits for us. We are fortunate we have such a wise and effective nation as Indonesia as our neighbour. Given the current environment of hysteria from the government and media, I would not be surprised if we bungled the prosecution of a terrorist attack. Creating political outcomes where only the justice inherent in our civil system was necessary.

The more civil liberties that are removed, the harder the state attempts to enforce monoculturalism, the greater the expansion of government into the private space of the "shadow state"; all place us closer to components that make failed states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran such hotbeds for extremist ideology.

The answer to terrorism in Australia is the secular liberalism of Australian Republicanism. Maximum liberty, tempered by individual rights and bound by inclusive and responsive minimal government is the best means to defeat terrorism and the environment that breeds and amplifies it.

cam

Announcing South Sea Republic's second book, Patterns of Liberty . This can be bought in dead-tree book form from our online store , or can be read in digital PDF form directly from the website.

Congratulations to the three new South Sea Republic authors; Guy, dlatimer and Felix. Hopefully this will be the first of many South Sea Republic books they appear in. A big shout out to Scrymarch who did the lion's share of the editing for this book. For those wondering, the stunning cover photography is courtesy of sven.

Table of Contents for Patterns of Liberty

Three Cheers For Liberty
- Three Cheers For Liberty; The Republican Riots of 1887
- Torture Is Incompatible With Republicanism
- Australian Minorities Will Be Discriminated Against
- What Century Would You Prefer Then? The Sixteenth, Perhaps?
- Interference From Above
Stewardship and Violence
- The Morality in the Defence Act 1903
- Goulburn's Challenge
- Water Out Y'ass
- Early Conflicts of Foreign Policy
- Focusing Australian Policy On Afghanistan
- Open Source Warfare and the Networked Republic
Models and Patterns
- Separation of Powers and Parliamentary Systems
- Joh Bjelke-Petersen and Unicameral Parliament
- Government Design Patterns - Party
- The Australian Senate
- Tapping the Wisdom of the People
- An Introduction to the Honorary President
- Why The Honorary President Is Above Politics
- Ratification, Sortition and Crowd Wisdom
technocratidol.com
- Flash-Advocacy Groups
- Consumption to Interaction
- Can The Cockroaches Survive a Nuclear Option?
- The Sad Tale of Latham and the problem of selling the 'Third Way'
- Free Trade and Nationalism
- The Individualist Streak in Australian Republicanism
- Liberal Secularism is the Answer to Terrorism
- Political Rationalism

To view more South Sea Republic books, visit our book page . A reminder to those that are lurking on South Sea Republic, anyone can publish an article here, you only need an account to do it. If you publish an article, that is of sufficient quality, then it will most likely appear in the next South Sea Republic book. So don't be shy :)

Liberty .

It is hard to convey how disgusted I am. With the idiots that started this because they decided violence was to their personal advantage. With the nationalists that escalated this beyond a juvenile clash. And now the NSW Government and NSW Police who are destroying the whole economic, social and cultural fabric of a wonderfully open city through their over-reaction. The government has managed to spread their coercive pollution up and down the coast - far beyond Cronulla or Sydney.

So who will be first to remember that liberty is more important than violent kids, nationalists, police or government? I am a Sydney-sider, and this is not the town I know and love.

Chris Flynn writes how multiculturalism is a worn out policy who's time is past . Not once in the article does he define what multiculturalism is. Multiculturalism is the liberty to pursue your own cultural interests. As a policy it is a natural expression of liberty. The alternative is assimilation, which is by definition coercion.

Multiculturalism replaced the assimilationist policies around the world and for good reason. Some of the assimilationist polices were tyrannical and inhumane. Australia's own White Australia policy was a good example, which included in its policies the removal of half-white children from Aboriginal mothers. While that is an extreme example, it shows the lengths to which coercion will be used to assimilate individuals into the dominant culture.

Much has been written about how multiculturalism has failed with the Cronulla riots being the example. But I saw the biggest problems was kids choosing violence to pursue their goals. The Lebanese-Australian kids seem more immersed in the stereotype of American gangsta culture than Lebanese culture.

American gangsta culture is a pop phenomenon, pushed by multi-nationals like Disney to sell more product to willing, and impressionable youths. Australia is a western, consumerist society that allows international companies to run massive marketing campaigns to sell their wares. The highly saleable American gangsta culture wont go away with assimilationist or monoculturalist policies.

Maybe the assimilationists will hope that the Lebanese-Australian kids will give up their gold chains, WRX's and gangsta attitude for the beach and become surfers. But the multi-ethnic faultline was the beach - it is where the waxheads and highway-waxheads clashed. The Lebanese-Australians were at the beach, soaking in the sun, swimming and causing trouble. They are assimilated in that great Australian past-time already.

The Australian Conservatives have beat a constant drum on the dangers of multiculturalism, and how it has failed, is failing, or causing woe. The newspaper op-eds are filled with articles claiming these ills in our society. The Australian Conservatives seem to roll it out as the reason for everything bad in the world.

Yet, Australians are a people who understand and want liberty - not only for themselves, but for others too. ACNeilson's polling on the issue of multiculturalism found over-whelming support for it . Eighty percent support or strongly support the policy.

A common refrain of the Australian Conservative establishment is that the elites and latte-left are out of touch, and are pushing unpopular and unwanted policies on Australians. On the issue of multiculturalism it appears the Australian conservatives are the ones who have misjudged the Australian people. The Conservatives are out of touch and pushing an unpopular and unwanted policy. Are we seeing the rise of a Neo-Latte-Conservative movement?

It appears the Australian Conservatives do not understand the liberty Australian people demand.

cam

Wisdom condensed into short sentence-length (siggable) bites.

adam on globalisation ;

Everyone in the world lives in the 21st century - just in different parts of the consumer spectrum, with different shipping costs.

Avocadia on morality in democracy ;

I put it that the moral force that liberal democracy serves is the morality of liberty.

Barnaby Joyce on politics ;

The purpose of politics is to deliver to you the highest level of freedom that does not impinge on the rights of others.

Thomas Jefferson on Juries;

I consider that [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.

NSW Premier Morris Iemma backs ID cards, sprouts gibberish

NSW Premier Morris Iemma announced today that he backed the idea of Australian identity papers, an inquiry into which is expected to be announced by Federal Attorney General Phillip Ruddock.

"An ID card can be a valuable weapon in the fight against terrorism, crime and fraud," Mr Iemma told reporters.

Sydney Morning Herald

I disagree, but whatever. Iemma then proceeded to say that,

We also need to ensure that there are proper protections for civil liberties and for privacy.

ibid.

Civil liberties? I don't even need to start with the slippery slope arguments. I can rubbish the idea of ID cards without even needing to raise the bogeyman of authoritarian intrusion into our lives. I put it to you that the federal government, or anyone else, is stupendously incapable of instituting proper privacy protections on these things.

In this day and age of users needing help from dumb applications to identify phishing attacks, and card readers readily accessible over the counter at Dick Smith Electronics that there is no such thing as proper protections for privacy. Lost your wallet? Well, identity thieves don't even need a federally backed ID card to steal your identity, but it sure will make it easier with one.

The standard argument is that a Bill of Rights gives veto power over legislation to the judiciary. The framing is that of elected versus unelected. The people are just popcorn-stuffing spectators to be appealed to, presumably with bread and circuses.

All of us who are democrats at heart should worry about a provision that tells the unelected judges to do whatever they can to read any other statute as consistent with their view (not the voters' or parliamentarians') of what some abstract moral list requires.

Allen, 2006

James Allen frets that a legislature has allowed the judiciary to wily-nily rule on constitutionality of legislation. Never mind that the only court that can rule on constitutional issues is the highest court. Never mind that there are bills of rights and then there are bills of rights. There are bills of rights like New Zealand's; an arse-backwards granting of rights to the people from the state. Then there are subtractive bills, bills that clearly tell the state that the people do not permit them the power to legislate certain aspects of life.

It is this second variety which is hand in glove with every evolution of English and Australian law. The Great Charter, the various victories of Parliament over the monarchy, the ultimately triumphant Chartist movement, even the extension of suffrage; they are marked by a devolution of the source of the state's power. This is what a bill of rights is, it is the people - the source of the state's power - telling the state where it has no business.

The framing of the debate as unelected judges versus the elected legislature ignores the people. It pretends that the judiciary and the parliament are in some permanent squabble, tussling over a power that exists in its own right, without source, as if divinely provided. It pretends that Australia follows some Nouveau Régime where the executive council, with the consent of the judiciary and the senate, occasionally permits an impotent parliament to offer advice that can and will be ignored. There is no Divine Right of Prime Ministers. The state governs at the sufferance of the people and the people have the right to deny the state power. One last point. The bill of rights that commenters should be talking about - the US Bill of Rights - is as much as their Constitution the result of the people re-asserting that power is sourced from them. The means they exercised were the last resort - ultima ratio plebum if you like - but we shouldn't have to follow suit. Nor should we be content with the first kind of rights bill, that "permitted" us by the state. So in that sense, I find myself agreeing with one paragraph, even if my agreement comes with a sardonic curl of my lip.

One last point: in Victoria the voters themselves didn't get a referendum to decide whether they'd have a bill of rights; the Government decided that for them. So much for the "right to take part in the conduct of public affairs". Any bets on who would have won that referendum?

lo! A statist complains that the state is overstepping its bounds by creating sweeping legislation without the support of the people. Next thing you know, they'll be creating legislation that affects him! Surely there must be some remedy for this. Perhaps some document that subtracts powers from the legislature in order to protect the people and the rule of law from zealous statists. All we need now is a name for this hypothetical document.

Freedom of religion is a common issue in liberal democracy. How does religious liberty equate inside the framework of Australian Republicanism?

Australia is not a particularly religious nation [PDF] . In Sydney 'no religion' is the third largest faith behind Catholicism and Anglican. Adelaide is Australia's least religious major city with no religion accounting for 21.4% of those polled and religion inadequately described being another 12.4%.

As a consequence, those with non-denominational religious beliefs are a significant minority.

Globalisation has had many effects in the allocation of capital, the movement of labour and the the transferral of goods and services. It has also had an effect in unifying political movements.

The United States has bucked the trend for major industrial nations in becoming less and less religious as they have become more prosperous. As a result the religious conservative movement in America is a well organised and well funded.

With globalisation their message reaches many empathic ears in Australia and is often absorbed as political issues or platforms by Australian Conservatives.

When Australia was a closed, protected and isolated nation-state the power of an international conservative movement did not have the political strength in Australia. Any religious movement had to be home-grown and face a significant non-religious minority in the polls and elections.

Globalisation has changed this dynamic. Issues are no longer as local as they used to be, and domestic public opinion can be swayed internationally through powerful groups that are well-funded and well-organised.

That is not to claim that a worldwide religious conservative movement is repugnant, rather to point out that a well funded and organized super-minority can skew issues and politics with global reach under globalisation.

For this reason, liberty needs double assurity of protection and entrenchment, especially liberty of religion.

Religion and Republicanism

The highest form of social organisation that is obtainable in this day and age is Liberal Democracy, and as a consequence is a principle of Australian Republicanism. That may change in the future, but for now remains true.

Theocracy is an inferior form of social organisation which entrenches tyranny and social/political privilege. It is not compatible with Australian Republicanism.

Central to liberal democracy is secularism where executive, legislative and judicial decisions are made under common law with deference to individual liberty, the individual as the discrete and dominant political entity and the principle of empiricism.

This requires that religion cannot be entrenched in any of those arms of government. Religion cannot be carried by the coercion of those arms, lest liberal democracy become theocracy and the republic a tyranny.

Republicanism is predicated on the protection of minority rights from the tyranny of the majority, while balancing representation sufficiently to ensure the minority will accept majority rule.

Given that faith follows from individual conscience, religion is a highly pluralist system. From Theism, to Atheism, to Deism, to Monotheism, to Polytheism.

Sects are also highly diverse in Australia. Catholics, Anglicans, Baptists, Buddhists, Muslims, Presbyterian, Orthodox and so forth.

If the state chooses a single religion to encourage, enforce or entrench then it fails as a republic as it is coercing the minority and enabling tyranny of the majority. This is by definition not a republican system.

While there are many sects and religions in Australia, if there was one uniform thought on religion would the state be able to entrench religion? The answer is again no. It only takes one person to differ from the majority and it becomes tyranny from the majority.

As this purity of religion is not achievable, due to individuals being, well individual, and of independent thought, it becomes true that the state cannot use coercion or entrenchment for any religion.

Religion and Conscience

The individual is the dominant discrete political unit in Australian Republicanism, not the nation-state or state. Liberty becomes the guiding political philosophy under such a principle.

Religious faith and belief are a very individual process, and the religious bonds between man and God very private and sacrosanct.

Individuals find great comfort, strength and guidance in their personal relationship with god. They also create strong communal and social bonds with others of the same faith.

To break, suppress or deny this personal relationship between individual and god, through coercion or entrenchment of a religion or religious belief system, is tyranny. This is not compatible under a republican form of government.

Conclusion

The only place religion has in an Australian Republic is one of maximum liberty. Freedom of religion must be an absolute.

Religious liberty must be protected from a tyrannous government system, the tyranny of a powerful minority and tyranny of the majority.

The only logical conclusion is for freedom of religion to be entrenched in the Australian Constitution; ensuring that it remains an area of personal freedom that government cannot trespass into.