What is the obsession with "big money" in politics? How do destroy an economy.

One of my favourite quotes is from William F. Buckley Jr.:

Liberals don’t care what you do so long as it’s compulsory.

Now Buckley, the founder of National Review magazine, was not talking about Liberals as in the Liberal Party of Australia. He was talking about the Liberals as in the leftish side of American politics.

However, such a statement applies equally in Australia but more broadly to pretty much most elected politicians and wanna be elected politicians. In many cases they don’t care whether a law or regulation works or helps or achieves its outcomes. What is most important is the activity of passing laws and regulations and the underpinning compulsion.

To highlight my point, I was recently at a function where I stated what I thought was the obvious proposition that, every government law and tax is ultimately enforced at the point of a gun. This was apparently a controversial statement to my interlocutor.

I gave the proposition of not paying taxes and he replied … oh, they won’t shoot you. But this misses the point.

If I don’t pay my taxes, the government will first seek to bankrupt me and then men and/or women from the sherrif’s office will come to physically remove me.

And so it comes to pass that the Labor Government with the support of the LNP opposition is planning to again change electoral rules … for their benefit of course.

Nothing attracts faster bipartisanship than legislation to increase pay and rations for politicians and legislation to diminish competition to the major parties. And so …

The minister responsible,

Don Farrell, declared that the proposed law will “take big money out of Australian politics”.

What is this obsession and paranoia with “big money” in politics? Oh sorry. Not big money but big money from non approved sources.

Unions will still be able to donate whatever. And the other fundraising arms of the majors will also be protected/grandfathered.

The Clive Palmer big spends are always brought up but to my mind who cares. It’s not as if it actually turns the dial. $100 million for a single representative in Ralph Babet. Apart from Babet offering a valid voice, is this necessary to pass another law?

There are so many unfounded an untested assumptions in our politics that lead to more and more laws and taxes and regulators and bureaucrats. This is just another. Like the social media nonsense proposed.

The idea of passing another law so that families can have a discussion at the “dinner table” is as insulting as it is offensive.

Not every economic and social problem warrants a new law. Can we end this reflex of legislate first, ask questions second.

It is not only a tax on our liberties it is also a tax on our finances because to pass and monitor compliance costs big dollars.

I bet this fellow does not have problems with big money in politics or competition from emerging parties: