>>Of course that depends on how we define success. If the Australian model is so superior why is it mandatory?

LOL. It's superior because it is mandatory. QED. ;-)

>>If the program produces better results than I do I will happily participate, but if I'm outperforming the system then I will continue to manage my own.

On this basis we should have circumstantial traffic lights: I am confident in my ability to traverse an intersection without crashing, so I should be allowed to ignore the traffic lights- unless I choose? Trouble is that we have to share life and the road with our neighbors and sometimes their actions affect us too. Sometimes it's good business to give up a little for something we don't believe we need- or would not need if not for the diminished capability of others who may live just down the street and can be expected to create their own definitions of property rights if we let them starve.

>>I keep responding that private property is the key to America. Without one's right to keep and benefit from the fruits of their own labor this grand experiment does not exist.

What else is law except an agreement by all to give up some personal sovereignty/property in exchange for order in the community, without which our property has little value? One scenario that matches your statement is the Wild West which was a failure until the law came to town and reduced personal liberty in exchange for improved personal opportunity. Certainly the opportunities created by the Aussie scheme are enormous.

>>Principle is not something you get to cast aside simply because of inconvienience to your argument.

Nor is real life. ;-)