I’m always wary of people who think that they know what’s best for the rest of us…

As is sometimes said in programming: the fastest, most secure code is the code you don’t write in the first place.

Law leads to lawyers.

Spot on. But the ex-Marxist in me cannot help but reduce it to economics, class-interests, and wealth-seeking. See, these multiculti types think they are altruistic, “helping the little people” - wogs, sheilahs, poofs, etc. I have a different take. “Helping” always involves passing laws, setting up taskforces, commissions, research units, policy advisers, law-enforcers, diversity officers and so on.

Then of course hordes of new “professionals” must be paid to “implement” all this altruism.

Now where does this money come? Firstly the taxpayer. And what types will need to be employed? Brickies? Well no. Middle-class people who have stuydied Social Studies at university. That is, the Nanny-staters own CLASS.

To summarise your honour. The multiculti Left (I shall you honour you by omitting the “L” word ;)) is a CLASS movement, whose class interests are advanced by being able to transfer as much of the tax take and federal/state budgets to employ their fellow class members to pimp ideologies that demand first and foremostly increasing amounts of tax dollars channelled into their own pockets.

In other words, bourgeois class warfare.

New Labour - like other left parties around the world - found that the price of power was abandoning socialist economics. It continued nonetheless to support many of the ‘group rights’ and ‘positive liberties’ characteristic of the old left. Multiculturalism, anti-vilification laws, ‘community safety’ (much of the support for ASBOs came from Labour’s traditional, working-class constituency), generous benefits coupled with mutual obligation.

My conference paper is on justifying certain types of private law liability in particular - Ernest Weinrib says we have to be able to justify to a defendant why he is liable to that particular plaintiff in that particular way.