>>>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. ;-)

"The theory of Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property" - Guess who?

>>>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-

Again, without the ability to control the fruits of our labor, there is no liberty. The protection of private property is essential to a free society. Besides, your statement belies the argument. "to give up" implies a conscious choice by the giver, which is what I'm suggesting. Mandatory confiscation is the opposite.

>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.

"Property is the fruit of labor...property is desirable...is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." - Lincoln

>>>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?

Order in the community is achieved through laws which are designed to protect the citizenry from those who seek to defy another's liberty or property. It has not to do with "giving up" anything since another's life, liberty and property are not for the taking in the first place.

If one chooses to "give up" some personal property or rights of their own free will in order to live in a community then that's their right. A perfect example are communities with CC&Rs. For an example of compulsion look at the recent history of the use of eminent domain.

>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.

The wild west strawman holds no place in this discussion as we are not discussing the absence of laws protecting people and property but rather the opposite, laws mandating confiscation of property.

>>>Principle is not something you get to cast aside simply because of inconvienience to your argument.
>
>Nor is real life. ;-)

By implication real life didn't work pre-government mandated retirement. How ever did we survive? ;)