So Bitar spent 2010 trying to get Labor elected and he will spend 2011 trying to undo pokies reform that is critical to its ongoing survival in minority government. Wonderful. He's just a gun for hire.

I had a look at the linked article on Republicanism. Seems like a mish-mash to me, and I subscribe to the view of one critic discussed in the article: "David Wootton, for instance, argues that throughout history the meanings of the term republicanism have been so diverse, and at times contradictory, that the term is all but meaningless and any attempt to build a cogent ideology based on it will fail".

My suspicions are increased by the support of Sunstein for republicanism. I haven't forgotten this guy's support for covert manipulation of public opinion:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein/index.html

gordon,
it wasn't a good link---a potted history of a tradition. You could say that some contemporary republican theorists view republicanism as an alternative to liberalism. Republican liberty is seen as a basis for criticizing market liberty and market society--ie., the negative liberty or market society.

The keys are a positive emphasis on liberty, a negative rejection of corruption, tying liberty to citizenship and civic virtue.

Positive liberty to do what? Follow the Fuhrer?

freedom to develop your capabilities in a liberal society.

If republicanism is an alternative to liberalism (ie. not the same thing), why do I need it in order to "develop my capabilities in a liberal society"?

market liberalism or neo-liberalism operates only with a negative concept of liberty ie., freedom from (regulation) not freedom to.

I'll stick with the negative concept, thanks. I prefer that to some republican offering me liberty with limits. And I especially prefer it to Sunstein offering me liberty with lies.

positive freedom is what underpins public education --freedom to develop one's knowledge, skills, capacities so that one can live a better life. Public education also enables me to play an active role in shaping society through my participation in democratic institutions.

Theories of negative freedom, in contrast, spell out the acceptable limits of interference by the state usually (or other people) in individuals’ lives. This basically says that state interference in individual lives is best kept to a minimum and it regards the welfare state as a stepping stone to socialism ie., according to Hayek's argument in The Road to Serfdom it is a soft form of collectivism that has a tendency of evolving into totalitarianism.

many of the proponents of market or negative liberty in Australia (eg., the Australian newspaper, the Centre for Independent Studies, the Federal Liberal Party, and the Business Council of Australia) are (very) critical of the liberal welfare state.

A common theme in their writings appears to be a concern to introduce a more restrictive and paternalistic system that will impose further controls and obligations on welfare recipients, and make it harder for them to access income security payments.

These recommendations, however, seem to philosophically conflict with their more general concern to promote what they consider to be a more liberal and freer society based on individual choice, responsibility and empowerment.

The welfare state is an infringement on personal liberties for these market (classical) liberals, condemned as an enabler of indolence.