A little rebellion

To understand political debates, it helps to have a view as to where we derive our liberties - particularly freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the presumption of innocence, and equality before the law.

We agree these are what distinguish us from places such as North Korea and Cuba, but are they given to us by the government or are we born with them? Is the government simply there to protect our rights, or should it decide which rights we can have?

This debate has been around for a long time. Leading Enlightenment figures such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes addressed it more than 300 years ago.

Hobbes believed the natural state of man was perpetual war, with life nasty, brutish and short. In his view, the only way to achieve civilisation was to relinquish all liberties to the government, which then granted certain rights. But if the government wanted to limit or remove those rights, it had every right to do so.

Locke argued that man is peaceful and industrious, but to establish a society in which private property can be protected it is necessary to allow the government to have certain powers. However, this is a limited and conditional arrangement and only the powers needed to protect life, liberty and property should be granted, and ultimate power remains with the people. If the government becomes too controlling, those powers can be reclaimed.

Locke heavily influenced the American Declaration of Independence, which explicitly declared that rights are inherent, and the government's role is to safeguard them.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Thomas Jefferson, America's third president and the Declaration's principal author, is well known for his statement: "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

Australia was once governed in accordance with Locke's view, admittedly without anything like the Declaration to underpin it. The government fostered enterprise, dipped into our pockets only modestly, and generally shared the view of John Stuart Mill that, "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

That is no longer the case. Our governments now intrude into our lives more than ever, based on the assumption that this is always legitimate. Proposals to increase taxes are described as "reform", tax deductions are known as "costs", and there are a huge number of rules and regulations designed to save us from ourselves. Many other rules aim to save us from threats that are not real, and of course parents are seen as unable to care for their children without the government's intervention.

Our governments pretty much assume we should be grateful for any liberties they allow us, just as Hobbes suggested.

But this does not occur in a vacuum – most Australians expect the government to save them from misfortune, even when it is a result of their own poor decisions. Receiving other people's money via the government is a matter of entitlement rather than a source of embarrassment.