"To people who support the Greens. Become more alert to the “downstream” effects of Green policies."

A classic example is in the Monaro district, where I come from. The biggest single factor destroying native vegetation is the Native Vegetation Act. This is because it prevents the necessary management of African lovegrass which is an invasive aggressive weed that's taking over native grasslands big time. The costs of getting rid of this weed are greater than the value of the land. Yet government is main vector of the spread of this weed - it was spread as part of the government's "management of natural resources" by the soil conservation service. The only way it can be controlled is by cultivation which is illegal under the Native Vegetation Act because it would wound Gaia's precious native vegetation - mile upon mile of Poa tussock with the feed value of cardboard.

Yet the Act just assumes that government automatically knows better how to manage "natural resources" for "sustainability" so the factual premise of the whole Act is obviously wrong.

And what makes anyone think such a problem is confined to the Monaro? Why would it be?

The supporters of the Act just assumed that it automatically and necessarily promotes native vegetation. It never occurred to the greens that the legislature might not be infallible, and that their might be unintended consequences to their dream of total control of everyone and everything through coercive central planning.

The author seems to be hankering for his own version of nirvana. He appears to forget that the major corporations that control most business activities in the private sector are artificial constructs, constructs only made possible by the laws of the State.

The major role of a strong government in a sovereign currency area has been clearly defined by in two recent presentations. The first was at the London School of Economics by Professor Mariana Mazzucato, of the University of Sussex, and her views are summed in her recent book "The Entrepreneurial State". The professor highlights, among other things, just how much of the technology of USA produced or controlled electronic gadget market, and leading medical developments, have been either the result of research undertaken by US Government owned facilities or funded, in other research facilities, by that Federal Government or its military or space agencies.

The second presentation was by professors Wray and Kelton from the University of Missouri, Kansas City. The slides form Kelton's talk are readily available at the neweconomicperspectives blog and show, in the introduction, the theory underlying neo-liberalism and libertarianism and how it is is flawed. Kelton shows in which areas of the fiscal space available, to a sovereign government, the economy can be sustainable.

The Sovereign Government has to oversee the economy to at least the extent necessary to overcome the wild fluctuations between enthusiasm and despair in corporations that are largely led by people who have little understanding of the likely outcomes of their combined actions.

Some idea of the deleterious effects of businesses' combined activities is available in the book titled,"Taking the Risk Out of Democracy" which combined some articles by the late Alex Carey. And, they are allowed their expenses in these activities as tax deductions.

"The author seems to be hankering for his own version of nirvana."

No reason is given for this gratuitous ad hominem. The author explicitly disclaims utopia.

"He appears to forget that the major corporations ... are artificial constructs ... only made possible by the laws of the State."

a) So what? He hasn't argued against the State or corporations.
b) corporations could achieve limited liability by contract, so your argument is a) untrue, and b) circular
c) You appear to forget that what controls most business activities is the directions of 7 billion people by their voluntary actions in buying and selling. You don't give any reason why a monopoly of aggressive violence would be presumptively better at allocating resources to their most valued ends.

"The professor highlights, among other things, just how much ... have been either the result of research undertaken by US Government owned facilities or funded, in other research facilities, by that Federal Government or its military or space agencies."

So what? That doesn't mean that:
a) the government has any presumptive superiority at producing these things
b) it even does them passably well
c) better might not have been produced with the same resources raised and deployed voluntarily.

If your assumption is correct, that government creates net benefits by such activities, then why not socialise all means of production?

Answer?

"...neo-liberalism and libertarianism and how it is is flawed."

Nothing that you have said has come near to beginning to establish that assertion.

"The Sovereign Government has to oversee the economy ... to overcome the wild fluctuations between enthusiasm and despair in corporations that are largely led by people who have little understanding of the likely outcomes of their combined actions."

This
a) doesn't explain why the sovereign government is immune from these same human follies or vices. It isn't. And
b) ignores the role of the government in causing economic depressions through its inflationay manipulation of the money supply.

That's a fail, Foyle. But thanks for demonstrating how socialism gets its only support in confusion, ignorance, and fallacies.

The kind of "classical" liberalism that Rafe promotes is the philosophy and politics of one-dimensional man or the slick-and-clever-mind that misinforms our entire "culture". http://www.beezone.com/dailyreading/slick_clever_mind.html
It is the philosophy and culture formed in the image of scientism or classical 19th century Newtonian science.
The same is true of socialism and communism.

In his famous 1922 poem The Waste Land T S Eliot described the cultural devastation caused by World War I. World War II finished off that process of devastation or the destruction of civilization. Nothing of any consequence has occurred or appeared since then to make any real difference to what Eliot described.

Although the techo-culture of the past 60 years or so has produced significant benefits for a significant percentage of the human population, on its own the philosophy & culture promoted by Rafe and his "libertarian" friends has inevitably lead to the exploitation, degradation, suppression, and the now-in-the-pipeline destruction of both the individual and humankind altogether - and the eco-sphere too.

These two essays describe the limitations and liabilities of the philosophy and "culture" that Rafe advocates:
http://www.dabase.org/p7unity.htm
http://www.dabase.org/p8realpolitik.htm
As indeed does the entire contents of this website:
http://www.beezone.com/news.html

Elswhere the author of the above essay describes the situation wrought by the poltics & "culture" of "libertarianism".
"Indeed, a society or any loose collective of mere individuals does not need, and cannot even tolerate, a true culture - because a true culture must, necessarily, be characterized in its best demonstrations and aspirations, by mutual tolarance, cooperation, peace, and profundity.
Therefore, socities based on competitive individualism, and egoic self-fulfillment, and merely gross or (slick-and-clever) supergficial mindedness actually destroy truly humanizing culture (and all, until then, existing cultures, and cultural adaptations.
And true cultures and true cultural adaptations are produced and needed ONLY when individuals rightly and truly participate in a collective, and, thus and thereby live in accorance with the Life-Principle of ego-transcendence AND the Great Principle of Oneness, or Unity."

This reference describes what our freedom has been reduced too by the relentless corporate propaganda channeled into our "living"-rooms by TV.
http://www.coteda.com/fundamentals/index.html
TV "culture" rules OK!

'To the intellectuals of the left. For the sake of a better quality of public debate it will help to be more inclusive in the forums and conferences of academics and commentators. The public are entitled to have exposure to a wider spectrum of ideas than they usually obtain in the publicly funded venues of academic conferences, writers festivals, idea summits and the ABC. It sometimes seems that the intellectuals of the left are struggling in the battle of ideas and the appropriate response may be to meet and find common ground with classical liberals and explore differences of opinion from that point, rather than adopting a confrontational and exclusive stance from the start'.

Yes I agree with this.

There is no longer any real debate.
There never was.
Any "debates" were essentially hot air exercises whilst the right-wing think tanks were systemtically growing their power - following on from the highly successful USA model perfected by the Republican Noise Machine.
How many voices of a left/liberal/progressive persuasion will be listened to by the new "there is no other way" "conservative" government.
Following on from Alasdair MacIntyre the barbarians are now fully ensconsed within the gates of the polis.
All contrary voices to the now dominant IPA/CIS right-wing think tanks line that informs the new governments political and cultural agendas have been quickly marginalized, and will remain so.
The IPA would even purge the ABC of left/liberal/progressive voices if it could - such is on its wish-list demands for the new government.

As David Korten and others have pointed out corporations now rule the world.