An article that is full of thought, and almost all of it fallacious, many times over.

Basically the author's argument boils down to the belief that by printing pieces of paper and stamping dollar signs on them, society can be made both more fair and more productive. It can't. Keynesian theory is wrong and indefensible. Government's pretensions to create wealth out of thin air by taking it from A and giving it to B are false.

"Government is the great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else."
Bastiat

And that fiction is all the author has for theoretical foundation.

Tony
An irrefutable disproof of your ethical argument can be found here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12955&page=0

Would you kindly read that thread, and then admit it irrefutably disproves your ethical argument?

However if you wish to maintain your argument, please show how you have avoided the fatal difficulties for it, comprised in the argumentation ethic discussed therein.

I will then offer to refute your economic arguments as follows.

There is a need to distinguish theory from history. History is capable only of contingent proofs. Theory is capable of categorical proofs or disproofs, for example Boyle’s law shows that there are certain knowable relations in physics and mechanics between temperature, pressure and volume.

For example, suppose a boiler explodes, killing some bystanders. The fact that one of the guys killed was called Fred, is a historical narrative only. We cannot say he was killed because he was called Fred; he could just as well have been called Sam and it would made no difference to causality. A historical explanation explains contingent facts; it does not show any necessary sequence or relation between cause and effect.

Theoretical explanations, on the other hand, provide universally valid propositions for the given conditions. For example we cannot say that the boiler exploded otherwise than in accordance with Boyle’s law. Why not? Because there’s no other possibility. Boyle’s law is a universally valid proposition for given conditions of temperature, pressure and volume.

Or rather, you *can* argue that Boyle’s law doesn’t apply, or that 2 + 2 = 564; but all it proves is that you’re wrong.

All the propositions of history and politics that you contend for, ultimately depend on propositions of economics. Some of these entail historical explanations. But others do not; they are capable of categorical logical disproofs. To deny this, is to deny the possibility of truth itself; if it were true, we could choose any material reality we want; would have discovered magic pudding.

I offer to irrefutably disprove your argument as to public goods. If you accept, please let me know.

It's just a set of views that I have held, Peter, not a set of facts. I'm not going to get into a to-and -fro debate with you because we both hold different opinions. You falsely believe that your opinions are synonymous with the truth and that this is a foregone certainty, hence there is no point in arguing with somebody who is not willing to transcend their own perspective in order to understand others in a productive manner.

I'd urge you to read the article again, Peter, for judging by your comments you have misinterpreted what i was trying to say, deciding to read your own interpretation into what i have written instead of attempting to understand what i was saying.

With regards to theories - i would urge you to read the Duhem-Quine thesis. Then you may learn that there is no such thing as a universally valid theory.

So you admit you cannot justify the policies you advocate

I don't need to justify them.