Some commentators have stated that this is not a very important election. I disagree.
The scenario of voter dissatisfaction with both major parties, means that the Greens, are poised to benefit. Such an outcome may lead to significant consequences to the way we live and work, to which our PM has alluded to. A softly spoken threat does not alert most people to logically think through the consequences.
Partly or wholly overturning our modern fossil fuel based civilisation, based on a man-made myth for which there is no evidence, may not only turn out to be regrettable, but also based on some Green commentary, irreversible. The case for the 'precautionary principle' is insane, i.e. "let's destroy our economy, just in case this failed theory is right". All this is served up, whilst ignoring better, more convincing and scientifically supported theories.
Yet all our major parties are proceeding on the basis that 'something' needs to be done about reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Therefore this election is very important, because it is substantially based on the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on humanity. It would also appear, no major party has the resolve to save us from this misguided path to economic destruction. Apart from other serious side effects this path will also lead to greater environmental degradation, as many Green policies already do.
There are many minor parties with limited resources trying to alert voters and provide more choices at the ballot box. If Australians will not listen to that choir of small voices, they may not realize what they have lost, until it's gone. Voters who are sensing something is 'not quite right', would be well advised to at least take out some lifestyle insurance with their Senate vote.

A quote from Wyatt Roy, the 20-year-old LNP candidate for the outer-Brisbane-fringe seat of Longman:

""The year 2050 for me is a reality
[he'll be 60 years old] and it's something
I want to ensure we get right; it's us
that are going to be dealing with
whatever decisions are being made now"
he says of his own generation."

The quote is from this article: http://www.freedomtodiffer.com/freedom_to_differ/2010/07/q-weekend-article-on-wyatt-roy-the-coalition-kid.html




It certainly seems reasonable that the electors of Longman should seriously consider electing him as their member if only to put some prospective talent into the future leadership talent pool of the Coalition parties, if it is true that what is on offer this election is not even a second option at the polls. At least that way those electors could be casting a vote for Australia's future.




More from the article, quoting Mary Spring, Wyatt Roy's economics teacher at La Trobe university:

"... He's a bright boy and can appreciate
things on an intellectual level, but he also
has a keen interest in the 'human' as well.
The fact that his family has been in the area
a long time, too - he has eyes looking through
the lens of generation after generation. That's
a powerful thing. He can bring all that
combined wisdom to the table."

Is it ridiculous for the Coalition to commit to making him, if elected, their leader immediately? At least then the existing talent's sincerity would be tested: then ALL would have to work as a team under a fresh, even if inexperienced, leader with a real stake in the future, if in turn THEY are interested in a political future.

An OLO thread on Wyatt Roy: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3807&page=0

>'precautionary principle' is insane, i.e. "let's destroy our economy, just in case this failed theory is right".

Yes you've got it in one. It's like saying "We need to kill large numbers of people now, because otherwise large numbers of people might die in the future."

It never seems to occur to the interventionists that by tinkering with the machinery that currently supports large numbers of lives, they are likely to cause large numbers of deaths. They will accept neither disproofs in theory nor in practice.

The order of society currently supporting six billion people is, like language, a product of human action, but not of human design. Contrary to authoritarian myth, it cannot just be re-shaped at will by passing laws - except to make it more wasteful. Even if you had one policeman assigned 24/7 to every member of the earth's population, it still can't be done, no matter how pious the beliefs of the enthusiasts.

Apt quote in haiku form from George Fripley - very relevant to the election.

The people have to choose
Between a rock and hard place
Suffer in your jocks!

CO2,

"Partly or wholly overturning our modern fossil fuel based civilisation, based on a man-made myth for which there is no evidence, may not only turn out to be regrettable, but also based on some Green commentary, irreversible."

Unfortunately, our thirst for cheap energy and imperative for infinite growth are both on a collision course with the finiteness of our natural resources.

I do believe that human activity is intensifying the greenhouse effect. However, even if you don't, there are plenty of other reasons to phase out fossil fuels - not least of which the fact that energy production cannot increase beyond the next decade, or two at the most (and global oil production is already in decline).

What this means is that our modern economy is going to be destroyed anyway, and certainly within my lifetime.

This gives us two questions to consider. Firstly, we know the car we're driving is definitely going to stop moving, and we can either hit the brakes or hit the trees. Secondly, even this question would be of a far lesser consequence if we weren't driving a car at all. Ultimately, we don't need to mitigate the problem: we will need an entirely different way of thinking.

We have far more serious problems in society than climate change, but if we can't get this discussion right, even after nearly 40 years, we'll be in even worse shape to deal with the next one.

Cheers,

Aaron

Aaron Nielsen,
Again this is a case of 'did you get party authorization for this ad'.
NB I am no fan of any party, as I believe they are a good part of the problem pandering to the almighty election win as an end in its self.
One can almost here the victors saying the morning after "Well that strategy worked, now we've won, *what* are we really going to do now."

The Greens would be " well that strategy worked, thank goodness we don't have to actually implement our policies. Now what are we going to do now".

Untill the Dems lost their way they at least had the policy of "keeping the B's honest".

The difference is that the Greens have to accommodate as part of their base the extremist. The public knew what they really stood for people and as such extremism has no part in their ambitions. Because of the greens narrow focus logic dictates that the extreme ends are closer to the mean and therefore one can't be that sure how dogmatic they will be.

Peter Hume

>'precautionary principle' is insane, i.e. "let's destroy our economy, just in case this failed theory is right".<
Your assertion that the precautionary principle means absolute or instant dismantling of our current structures is simply bad logic or a reflection of r emotional political bias.

IMO Any argument that assumes either of opposing extremes are the only options are so naive as to be practically unworthy of serious consideration.

“What the Greens are offering is simply a vision of something different…”

They certainly are, and it’s clearly not a vision that most Australians care for. Nine percent of the primary vote in the 2007 election, and who knows what next month. The 12%-15% is wishful thinking, but if a party with that low a vote does, as predicted by some commentators, gain the balance of power in the Senate, then we are in big trouble.

Irrespective of which party gains power, the Greens will cause chaos unless they are placed last on ballot papers.

The Greens are not “progressive”; their extremist policies would drag us back to the dark ages

Examinator
That quote I quoted was from CO2 in the first post to this thread.

The precautionary principle doesn't have to entail absolute or instant dismantling of 'our' current structures to be bad, and to entail a risk of killing large numbers of people.

This risk cannot be conjured away by a superstitious belief in miraculous government, and the divine knowledge of a mystic 'we'.

(BTW, who exactly is this 'we' you refer to?)

To prove that government policy were able to produce a better outcome than the status quo, you would need to be able to answer the questions that all the warmist/interventionists have been unable to answer in: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10724&page=0

Those questions are:
a) It’s true isn’t it, that facts do not of themselves, supply value judgments and therefore that positive science does not, of itself, justify policy action?
b) How is government to know whether all the costs of a given policy action exceed the benefits? (By ‘all costs’ I mean those which can, and those which cannot be calculated in terms of money.)
c) How is government 1.to know, 2. to weigh up and 3.to reconcile the inconsistent value claims of all people, both now and in the future, affected by any proposed policy?

If Gillard had won the debate on Sunday night boy oh boy wouldn't the commentators and the media have gushed on about how important the debate was.

Abbott revealed Gillard as nothing more than another Rudd and perhaps worst than Rudd ever was. Since Sunday night Gillards and Labors campaign has descended into a chaotic shambles. A prime example was Wong and Richardson squabbling with Milne on Q & A over who did what to who, last Parliament, over ETS.

You've gotta give it to Abbott though. Not only did he come out of the debate looking PM material but it's increasingly looking like he's totally undermined and sent packing two Labor leaders in a year. Two one term PM in three years is a record never likely to be repeated.

By the day it must be becoming painfully obvious to the Labor powerbrokes why it is unwise to dump an elected PM in his first term. What a bunch of short-sighted dipsh-ts. Did they really think Kevin 07 would go quietly in an election year?

The greens will benefit from Gillards implosion, as they did with Kevies, but this time so will the coalition. Labor will lose votes to both and an increased % of preferences will flow from the greens to the Coalition.

I reckon Abbotts managed to focus the election onto competent Government.

After Rudd I think the Grand Vision and Aspirational politic's is in the can and the electorate is totally disillusioned with that bs. It is now turning to merely wanting a government that is competent.

I think most of the media and commentators have misread this move across the electorate. They see and express it as rejection of the major parties or disinterest. They're wrong. There is rejection of Labor and Gillard but not of politics nor of the Greens but more importantly nor of Abbott and the Coalition... and there is a great deal of real interest in the campaign.

Competence will give us all we want!

Thank you for engaging as an article author on the comments thread, Aaron.

It is no myth that, in the absence of new and very significant oil discoveries, Australia is in a very exposed position as a liquid fuels importer, with its heavy dependency on such fuels. Australia would appear to be in a potentially very fortunate position with respect to coal reserves, what with the recent Pedirka Basin discoveries perhaps doubling, or even tripling known world reserves.

Without going into the issue as to whether or not, or to what extent, coal, used in the manner it presently largely is, may contribute to climate change, would it not be making sense for Australian governments to be at the very least planning to ensure such things as an Australian-based industrial capability for coal-to-liquids fuel production to at the very least the level of self-sufficiency? Yet where do we see any sustained planning at government level for such projects?

Where do we see sustained government initiatives, monitored and reported upon as to progress being achieved, in any area of energy security?

Australia, girt by sea, seemingly is to be left to the 'tender mercies' of the global energy markets, courtesy of sustained tacit bi-partisan inaction on the part of successive Australian governments.

Where is the vision?

Do we leave our defence policy and preparedness to the 'market' to provide our only options as to 'supply'? Of course we don't! It is a matter of public policy. Where is the public policy on energy security and energy source substitution? Where is the public policy as to planning value-added energy export to what is anticipated to become an energy-short world?

Where is the planning as to Australian equity, public and private, in the value-added end products that will ensure Australian energy security and give Australia something to sell to the world in the future?

Apropos the acquiring of old clunkers, in the face of Australia's oil dependency and the apparent absence of GTL and/or CTL development policy, what signal does this decision send?

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/finance/20100726-solar-sector-furious-after-gillard-robs-industry-to-fund-new-cash-for-clunkers-deal.html

Peter Hume,

Like I said any (human societal) argument that is predicated on the sole basis of a competition between extremes/absolutes isn't worth the effort of serious consideration. That includes the originator of the quote.

My bad? I thought you were defending the indefensible.

Based on the three questions no government or people should do anything in issues of society, economics, etc as those three questions can't be answered in the absolute they demand.

the laws of probability suggests that the *appropriate* answer is more likely to be found within the +/- 2 standard deviations of the mean. An exact where is again a matter of probabilities.

Nature is about balance, Not dominance. The latter is Malthusian, an extreme and unsustainable. Inevitably ends up in the destruction of the whole or a realignment of the balance.

Cumulative relevant science suggests that that realignment may not be beneficial to homo sapiens or life as we know it. Change is one of the immutable facts of life the key is time limiting change to a speed that permits adaptation. Change that is so rapid to prexclude adaptation = catastrophe.

By your choice of label it would appear that you are assuming an aweful lot.

Notwithstanding I agree that superstition beliefs of any kind is not the answer. Neither should we do nothing and wait untill the evidence is absolute either.

Keith,

"I reckon Abbotts managed to focus the election onto competent Government.

After Rudd I think the Grand Vision and Aspirational politic's is in the can and the electorate is totally disillusioned with that bs. It is now turning to merely wanting a government that is competent."

I understand the impression that the Labor Party is incompetent, but it doesn't imply that the Liberal Party is somehow *not* incompetent.

This is the exact mindset I wrote about: many people who reject Labor now will vote Liberal by default, as if there aren't other options (and as if it couldn't be any worse). Both parties are making good use of that in their campaigns. Personally, my memory isn't that short.

Yes, the Liberal Party will gain in popularity as voters give up on Labor, and yes, Abbott did better than I expected at the debate. However, on Sunday night, neither he nor Gillard looked as if they even want the job. Suits me.

Cheers,

Aaron

I agree entirely with Aaron- in fact he summed up my own attitudes pretty well.

Anyway, putting aside all the spooked, baseless rabble so far expressed in this thread, I believe this election is definitely a positive in that Australians are waking up to how pathetic our two major candidates truly are.
More and more people will start eying other candidates, and I'm perfectly happy that the Greens are particularly prominent one of them.

So long as the other parties are smart and would sooner try to form a coalition with each other than divide themselves up on who is (or WAS) more 'Labor' than 'Liberal', we might make some progress.

After all, I reckon Family First and the Greens would actually have more in common with each other than with either Liberal and Labor- for the sole reason that they both appear to be substantially honest, actually take their job seriously and have the well-being of Australians on their mind.

Examinator

Who is the ‘we’ you keep referring to?

As for ‘argument that is predicated on the sole basis of a competition between extremes/absolutes’…

This assumes that the current ‘extremes’ give us the framework of viability, that viable solutions have to pick some kind of middle ground within them. But if a given extreme position is not able to satisfy a threshold test of logical soundness, then there is no reason to accord it the status of one of the given extremes within which alternative proposals must fit.

You say my questions cannot be answered ‘in the absolute they demand’? What is that supposed to mean? How about you try and answer them otherwise than in a supposedly demanded absolute, but still in such a way as to satisfy a threshold test of logical soundess? Please try, and let’s see what you can come up with.

There are serious problems with arguing that the laws of probability suggest “the *appropriate* answer [to practical human problems] is more likely to be found within the +/- 2 standard deviations of the mean.”

This assumes that the proposition is an empirical one in the first place, and amenable to statistical analysis. It might be, but it might not be. All or most ethical questions for example cannot be solved by reference to quantification or statistical analysis.

Also if the proposition is not capable of satisfying the threshold test of being logically sound in the first place, the question of its empirical basis does not arise; any more than we statistically analyse the viability of a solution based on invisible pink unicorns.

Nature imposes certain limits on human action and production possibilities. These limitations are not a social construct, do not originate in a cultural ‘narrative’, and cannot be made to disappear by re-arranging human institutions or property titles, in other words, cannot be made to disappear by policy action.

Rather, these limitations on human action and production possibilities follow directly from physical laws which are knowable, and which have logical consequences. *If* the premises are factually true, and *if* the deductions therefrom are logically valid and internally and externally consistent, then to that extent, we are capable of some minimal logical knowledge about limits on human action and production possibilities.

One of these logical consequences is that central planning of production cannot be as economical in avoiding wastage of resource than the status quo. It is important to understand that we know this not just from empirical evidence, but because the basic proposition does not meet the threshold test of constituting a logically sound proposition.

Unless you, or anyone, is able to show that the proposition involved in seeking policy solutions is capable of constituting a logically sound proposition, then the expectation that policy solutions are viable, is in no better position than a superstition.

The fact that this conclusion disproves assumptions about the efficacy of government is no more a proof against it, than that it disproves assumptions about the efficacy of rain dances. Or should rain dances be one of the 'extremes' within which we accommodate our possible alternatives? And if not, why not?

If the advocates of policy action are not able to show in theory how government policies are able to produce net benefits considering all costs both economic and non-economic, then the intellectually honest thing to do is to re-think the claim that they can, not to argue that it can’t be true because it contradicts a fondly-held belief.

Please either let us have your honest attempt to answer my questions, avoiding what absolutes you will so long as you attempt to satisfy the minimum of logic; or admit that you can’t and that it follows that there is no reason why alternatives should accommodate the belief in policy solutions, nor avoid the extreme of denouncing them as unfounded.

For a man hated so much by Ms Gillard it is hilarious that she has now adopted his policies in order to fool the voters. She pretends

1. be tough on illegal immigrants
2. be a fiscal conservative
3. oppose gay marriage

How gullible can the public be. Could you imagine John Howard

1. Being soft on illegal immigration
2. being a wasteful spender of tax payer money
3. supporting gay marriage

At least the Greens are honest about what they believe even if their policies are totally bereft of any morals.

Also I must insist we debate at a certain level of intelligence.
That means no more "extremes" "middle ground/centrist", "left/right" garbage (because they're nothing but moronic ignorant non-existent perceptions). And while we're at it, let's drop the vague hints of ominous (and conveniently un-elaborated) doomsday scenarios. And the silly stereotypes. The actual chances of the Greens secretly turning us into a flower-power marxist state are about as likely as One Nation building gas chambers and flying 20 foot flags with Pauline Hanson's face on it if elected, or Family First making everyone wear a burka (all of which are ZERO, for those who are stupid and have never bothered to check out each party's site).
This isn't kindergarten, grow up.

Instead, why don't we be big boys and girls and actually critically evaluate each minor party. I mean actually list them all and do a rundown.
For example, if we actually have a problem with any policy (or alternatively, past performance) then we can actually talk about it.

Also what exactly is the "middle?" Can anyone here actually list out what kind of policies a "middle" or "centrist" candidate would endorse, and why this sets them apart from the "extremes"?
I have a feeling I'm going to be fed parrot lines by people who less-than-understand what they even say. But please, prove me wrong.

Peter Hume,

Examinator is right about your three questions: they are pure, but for the sake of purity, not reason or practicality. Question a) ignores the values we impose through instincts such as survival and compassion, while questions b) and c) deny our human curiosity. Even individually, they are questions to obstruct and distract, to prevent action and change. Yes, that means I'm not going to try to answer them either.

As for your argument about "threshold tests", the idea "central planning of production cannot be as economical in avoiding wastage of resource than the status quo" is not even remotely logical. If, for example, it is human nature to consume of vital but renewable resources to the point of exhaustion, then it would be far better to implement a policy to limit that consumption to the rate at which they can be replenished. I don't see what's superstitious about a plan like that.

One need only hear the word "extinction", or even "deregulation", to think of counterexamples involving inaction.

I suspect that your scepticism is, deep down, of the government, rather than of all forms of societal organisation or progress. That said, maybe I'd just prefer to believe that than to consider the evidence in front of me.

Cheers,

Aaron

You suspected correctly Aaron.

Peter is a radical and anti-government in terms of strongly opposing tried and true legislation and policies, somehow fooling himself into believing that his opinions may one day influence some Australians. Peter is all for allowing people to create and implement their own laws.

Few Australian parents and families would be persuaded into agreement, if Peter ever had his way, for the age of consent to be lowered; particularly most Ozzie Dads and/or Guardians of young teenage girls and boys.

Continue on your mission Peter; it is fruitless.

Aaron,

No Gillard and Labor's obvious incompetence don't imply Abbott and the Coalition are competent. That's illogical. Abbott and the Liberals, independantly of the impression created by Gillard and Labor, do give the impression of competence.

The Australian electorate is clever enough to work that out and will base their vote on that criteria this election.

Few people vote 'by default'.

Abbott wants the job to lead us back to no debt, no waste and a controlled border. He's said so and continues to say so.

Gillard want's the job to lead us to move forward... but she's isn't saying from where to where and, thankfully, she's not saying that so much now.

Brown simply wants the balance of power ... he keeps saying that too.

Now which attitude potrays competence?

Keith,

Firstly, no attitude can portray competence... it's non-sensical.

It can portray ethos, desire, intentions, motivations... but an attitude in itself does not represent competence...

Secondly,

"Brown just wants the balance of power"

Likewise, Abbott and Gillard just want the prime ministership...

But, in your obvious bias over balance, as you move from Abbott, through Gillard, to Brown, you gradually simplify their positions down to the most base level.

Aaron,
By the way the expression is Hobs' choice not Hobson's if you are going to quote get it right.

Examinator,

"By the way the expression is Hobs' choice not Hobson's if you are going to quote get it right."

Firstly, I didn't put that subtitle in; an editor did. It's appropriate, but it wasn't in my copy (so thanks to whoever did that).

Secondly, "Hobs'" refers to more than one Hob. If you mean someone called Hobs, it should be "Hobs's".

Thirdly, if you mean the philosopher Thomas Hobs, his name is actually spelt Hobbes.

Fourthly, the expression "Hobson's choice" is correct. The reference to Hobbes is a common mispronunciation, as well as a commonly-held misconception because Hobbes is quite widely known. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobson%27s_choice

While I'm here, is there anything else I can help you with? Not that I don't sound smarmy enough already, but if I can help, I will. :)

Cheers,

Aaron

Aaron
The fact that positive science does not of itself supply value judgments, does not ‘ignore the values we impose through instincts such as survival and compassion’.

Let’s assume that measurements of temperature show that the globe is warming so as to endanger human survival. The measurements of temperature themselves, and climate science, don’t supply the value judgment that we should do something. The value that we place on human life supplies the value judgment that we should do something.

You say that questions how anyone is to know whether policy provides net benefits (including benefits in non-economic terms) “deny our human curiosity”.

How do they deny our human curiosity? If anything, they should provoke human curiosity: - to wonder whether you, or anyone, can answer these questions, on which the justification of government policy depends.

“If … renewable resources… [risk consumption] to the point of exhaustion, then it would be far better to implement a policy to limit that consumption to the rate at which they can be replenished.”

Only if *policy itself* does not cause greater waste of resources, or deaths by starvation, for example by diverting global production into loss-making activities.

“I don't see what's superstitious about a plan like that.”

What’s superstitious is that it is irrational. Why? Because you are unable to know or show whether a given policy entails greater waste of natural resources, and I can show why it does.

As with drowning witches, the people advocating policy are unable to know whether it can provide the benefits they say it can; while they ignore the cost in terms of human lives and suffering by assuming it’s all worth it for a higher goal.

Thus even if there were no issue as to the climate science, policy action on global warming is not ethically justified by ‘science’. And even if there were no issue about the likelihood of massive corruption, policy action on global warming is not practically justified by its net economic and non-economic benefits.

It is based on a circular irrational faith in miraculous government.

Hey Trashcanman

Perhaps I should have asked whose manner, disposition, feelings, and position with regard to governing or whose tendencies or orientations suggest competence?

Then it would have been clear in simple unnuaned terms ... eh?

regards keith

Yep, and my answer would have been:

"Neither. We really need to get them to sing, dance and cook to decide who will be 'Australia's Next Prime Minister'!"

"My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions"
[Bible, 1 Kings, chapter 12, verse 14]

Aaron Nielsen is right - the Greens ARE different... worse!

If you already feel that your personal freedom is being quashed under Labor and so-called Liberals, wait till the Greens are in power to get a taste of how life were in the U.S.S.R, Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Fascist Japan, etc.

Peter Hume,

You pose your three questions in rhetorical and absolute terms, with the predisposition that they cannot be answered. Yet, you yourself prove them to be invalid, by your reliance on them being isolated from anything tangible. If anyone followed your advice, they'd never go anywhere, do anything or talk to anyone, because you can never be completely certain in advance that the costs won't outweigh the benefits.

I proposed a policy to limit consumption of a renewable resource to a sustainable rate. This completely debunks your assertion that "central planning of production cannot be as economical in avoiding wastage of resource than the status quo". Leadership on this scale is not "miraculous": it's happened many times before, to bring us hospitals, fire stations, schools and weekends. None of these is perfect, sure, but they contribute to the common good.

Perhaps I should take back my suspicion that there's something to your opinion other than obstructionism. I don't care that you disagree with a government policy, but you are making a dishonest, extreme and impracticable argument for your chosen course of inaction. If you ever hope to stop contributing to the problems, stop telling us what we can't do, and start suggesting something we can.

Cheers,

Aaron

now what was that you said about bias?

“Yet, you yourself prove [the three questions] to be invalid, by your reliance on them being isolated from anything tangible. If anyone followed your advice, they'd never go anywhere, do anything or talk to anyone, because you can never be completely certain in advance that the costs won't outweigh the benefits.”

My questions are not isolated from anything tangible, and do not require absolute knowledge or complete certainty.

I’ll give you examples.

I take it you’re agreeing that facts, of themselves, do not supply value judgments.

But that doesn’t make value judgments invalid, including about tangible things. We can and do value things as a means to an end, like a hammer, and as an end value in themselves, like the beauty of a waterfall. Both of these instrumental values, and end values, can either be about tangible things – an apple – or about intangible things – the environment or compassion.

Suppose I want to visit a friend, or buy an apple, or reduce my carbon emissions. I don’t need absolute certainty that the costs will outweigh the benefits to take action. I only need to satisfy the logical minimum. If the friend wants me to visit, no problem arises. Or suppose someone offers me an apple at a price I am ready, willing and able to pay. Or suppose I decide I’ll stop using a heater. No problem arises. It is not illogical to assume that the personal and social benefits of doing all these things, outweigh the costs, because all the transactions are either consensual, or don’t violate anyone else’s self-ownership or proerty. Each person benefits from the transaction or suffers no loss, and value is created: a win/win.

Therefore the problems I raised do not require one to stop going anywhere, isolation from anything tangible, or complete certainty as you allege.

The problem with proving benefits of actions is when the transactions aren’t consensual, but are based on coercion or threats. If A wants to rape B, then how do you prove that there is a net benefit? Well it’s a lot harder, isn’t it

The fact it’s hard to logically prove the benefit, and the fact that the transaction is not consensual, is not some kind of strange coincidence. It is hard to prove the beneficial value *because* the transaction is not consensual. How could one prove a net benefit? The problem is not that it’s some kind of trick question, the problem is that one party is using force or threats to violate the other person’s ownership of self or property, and is destroying human, economic and environmental values in the process.

“I proposed a policy to limit consumption of a renewable resource to a sustainable rate. This completely debunks your assertion that "central planning of production cannot be as economical in avoiding wastage of resource than the status quo".

No it doesn’t, because it doesn’t take account of the *use of resources needed to substitute for the benefits foregone.* If what you were saying was right, we could abolish the problem of natural scarcity, simply by vesting power in government to produce everything. It’s false.

“Leadership on this scale is not "miraculous": it's happened many times before, to bring us hospitals, fire stations, schools and weekends.”

You still haven’t proved that there is a net benefit compared to if the same things were paid for voluntarily. You’re simply assuming that the use of compulsion miraculously creates positive value. But when I ask you to prove it, you can’t.

“None of these is perfect, sure, but they contribute to the common good.”

If you spend a billion dollars to get a million dollars worth of benefit, the benefit we do buy still ‘contributes to the common good’. It’s just that it wastes resources, and that is not better for the environment.

Something constructive we can do? The whole point is, no-one has proved that coercive action actually produces net benefits. Just to stop doing things that are actively wasteful is already a constructive suggestion.

[While doing something is actively destructive]
“To do nothing is also a good remedy.”
Hippocrates