Byron, I have no objections to you raising this stuff, but there are a number of important points that you and/or Lamprecht's article miss.
1. The Zimbabwe and South African governments are not Marxist/Socialist.. They are an African version of the same interventionist, nanny-state government that we see throughout Europe and in Australia. The African component is nepotism, meaning looking after family and friends. That leads to corruption and reluctance to relinquish power. There is no serious intention to socialise the means of production, distribution and exchange in either place. The leaders just want to personally own them.
2. In Zimbabwe, the government could not have succeeded but for the fact that it undermined the High Court and forced the resignation of any judge not prepared to comply with its wishes. Until then, the whites were succeeding in preventing the government from taking their land. This reinforces the point that an independent judicial system is a major barrier to arbitrary government power and a very good reason for opposing things like mandatory sentencing. It's not being soft on criminals, it's because the judiciary must remain independent of government. Zimbabwe is an example of what happens if it's not. If South African courts lose their independence, then the country is really in trouble.
3. Avoidance of government taxes is universal, as is the creativity of those concerned. The American Revolution started because the British imposed new taxes on the American colonies. Lamprecht's concern about capital gains taxes and classification of personal exertion as paid employment is already reality here. They are simply a manifestation of the overall problem of excessive government intervention, facilitated by too much tax revenue. A government kept poor cannot afford to intrude in our lives. The Howard government is the highest taxing governments we have ever had.
4. Government scrutiny and intrusion is high and growing inexorably. The latest manifestation is the Howard government's anti-terrorist bill, which challenges several fundamental rights. Ironically, it is the left that has opposed it when it should be us freedom fighters. In some ways we are no better than the left: they oppose our freedom to have guns, but support certain other political and personal freedoms. We support personal freedom on guns, but oppose left-wing freedom causes (eg drugs, sexual preference). The only truly principled position is libertarian - no intervention unless to correct an injustice, no curtailment of freedom unless to protect the freedom of someone else.
5. The Game Bill is definitely an example of additional government intervention. The new licence requirement, the penalties and inspectors all increase the power of the state over us. That is why some shooters are not very enthusiastic about it. Its justification is the additional freedoms it could bring - hunting on public land and acknowledgement of hunting as a conservation resource.
6. The International Criminal Court is not an example of government intervention. It is an attempt to make the likes of Mugabe and other revolting despots accountable for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It will have no effect on civilised countries like Australia and the US, in spite of the US concern about "political" prosecutions. It basically means there are some things you just cannot get away with, no matter who you are.
regards, Byron.