Max Rheese has a strong grip on the problems that now abound in what are called National Parks. I have the feeling that Myles Dunphy, the acknowledged father of National Parks in Australia will be spinning in his grave,
While very popular NP's receive adequate management, those that are out of sight and out of mind, suffer.
I instance Wilsons Promontory NP with its well organised bitumen roads, accommodation, shops and plentiful staff. Last time I was there, Mt Beauty was in that category.
Consider the Wonnongatta Moroka unit of the Alpine National Park. Almost identical in size to Wilson's Prom NP but with a staff of S E V E N. Seven people to perform fuel reduction burning in a mosaic pattern. To eradicate hundreds of hectares of pest plants and feral animals. To look out for visitors doing the wrong thing.
The twin problems of preference voting and proportional representation means that when the anti human being Greens say jump, both the Libs and especially Labor say, how high?
Why do the Greens so hate the bush that they will not see the value of cool burning? What have they got against Australian animals that they insist upon extremely high temperature summer fires rather than the autumn cool burns?

I have lost count of the number of times I have sailed the Qld coast, between Gladstone, & Cairns.

Along this coast are vast areas of once grazing lease, before WW11, turned national park.

I have a number of favoured anchorages, used in bad weather, or for R&R. When in one of these, I like to have a bit of a wander around. Back in the 70s, a short walk might be 10 miles, but not today.

These parks are becomming just one great lantana thicket, most of it very hard to penetrate, if you are not a feral pig. It is no longer a place you would choose for any sort of walk. The scrub turkey seem to like them, the Lantana mulch is probably good mound building material, but otherwise, even the bird life is much reduced. As an example of promotion of biodiversity, they could not get much worse.

It is a pleasure to anchor at the Port Clinton army training area, in contrast, which is well managed. I have never seen any national park presence in any of these parks, & have seen absolutely no sign of any management. Perhaps we should give the parks to the army. I suppose you have the chance of stepping on a bomb, but at least you can get through the bush.

There is not much chance of improvement either, while the park's policy is designed to buy the inner city high rise dwelling greenies vote, & not much else. Not much chance of this lot seeing these parks. No nicely constructed walkways, complete with hand rail, here.

There is a perception amongst many who enjoy the the Australian bush, that NP's are only for one group of people and those people are NP rangers.
This was reinforced to me by an NP ranger who confided that there is a push within NP's to limit access to “low impact” campers.
Low impact in NP terms are those who travel on foot and who carry every thing they need on their backs.
The unfortunate part for the parks themselves is that NP's are limiting access to the next generation, those that will be responsible in the future for something they don't understand or appreciate.
Instead of limiting access they should be embracing new visitors and teaching them the true valve of NP's.

I’m not sure about this ‘one size fits all’ notion. The fact that popular parks with lots of infrastructure and staff are treated very differently to parks in the backblocks which are there to protect representative areas of ecosystems, areas of high biodiversity and/or habitat for particular plants or animals and don’t have much visitor appeal or infrastructure to accommodate tourism, indicates that there is certainly not a ‘one size fits all’ style of administration.

It is a pity that there isn’t a much more uniform level of management… with all parks receiving the same level of attention in terms of basic environmental management that some parks or parts of parks that are in the public eye do.

A new paradigm is definitely needed whereby the very limited attention that many parks get is greatly improved.

Crikey, Australia is in boom times and has been for ages. We CAN afford to manage our environmental values a whole lot better than we have been.

If we could just get rid of the notion that constant rapid population growth and economic expansion is the answer to greater prosperity, then we might have a chance of protecting our environment more effectively.

Instead of all of us constantly paying for infrastructure and services for ever-more people, with no real gains for the existing populace, we should be spending some of this money on protecting our environment…instead of facilitating ever-more pressure being placed upon it.

And instead of the enormous profits being made from quarrying Australia going largely into accommodating ever-more people and setting them up with the Australian lifestyle, they should be directed much more so into protecting our environmental health.

There is a crazy contradiction happening here, between rapid environmental alienation largely as a result of rapid population growth and the increasing national park estate and environmental protection that is supposed to go along with it.

Let’s plan for a stable population and embrace genuine sustainability. Then we’ll both greatly reduce the pressure being placed upon our natural environment and be able to protect it in an ongoing manner much more effectively.

Lets take that one step further Ludwig.

As many of the immigrants were required to spend a couple of years on the Snowy Scheme, lets try something similar. We should be able to sort out those worth having, by their response.

How about a mandatory 2 year probation environmental service, in parks, & other public lands. All to be served in remote locations, on minimum wage, as a qualification for admission.

Any who would take that on, would have to be worth having, & should be welcomed.

I am having trouble seeing beyond a lobbyist for the Forestry Industry doing a fairly transparent job of lobbying for the Forestry Industry to take over our National Parks.

National Parks provide habitat for our wildlife. They don't need to "managed" to do this, certainly not in the way the Forestry Industry would be managing them. As the country with the highest mammal extinction rate on the planet, our wildlife needs all the help it can get.

For those of you who haven't come across Max before, as the articles bibliography notes he is a executive directory of the the Australian Environmental Foundation, a group created by the Institute of Public Affairs, which is a turn a group primarily funded by Gunns. The AEF foundation was announced during the May 2005 Annual conference in Launceston of Timber Communities Australia.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Australian_Environment_Foundation

He is also the founding member of the Rivers and Red Gum Environment Alliance, which lists among its supporting organisations "Victorian Association of Forest Industries" and the "NSW Forest Products Association".

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rivers_and_Red_Gum_Environment_Alliance

I don't mind fair dinkum criticism of how our National Parks are run, but this lobbing for the Forest Products Association under the guise of heart felt concern for our National Parks is a bit rich.

That's an outstanding idea Hasbeen. Actually, before I go on, you're being sarcastic aren't you? I mean your next post will be about limiting the number of Catholics, people of colour, Jews, people with a limp and inveterate nose blowers, won't it?

I mean the logical extension of your idea is quite marvellous because it will give us a ready made army and then we can attack New Zealand.

The disastrous situation for the river red gum where 50,000 visitors per year were promised and only four (4) people sign the visitors book on average each day, is similar to the ‘Tarkine’ in NW Tasmania.

The Savage River National park and regional reserve was created as a result of the Regional Forest Agreement in 1999, and according to the Parks and wildlife service contains “the largest contiguous area of cool temperate rainforest surviving in Australia”.
The Savage River NP and Regional reserve, has a combined area of 35,660 hectares.

The management plan boasts: The rainforest located on the Savage River Plateau is the largest contiguous area of cool temperate rainforest surviving in Australia. The area is an outstanding biological resource and a major refuge in Australia for myrtle (Nothofagus cunninghamii) dominated rainforest, a type of forest with strong affinities to Gondwanic land flora. A high diversity of rainforest communities occur within the park including representative callidendrous, thamnic, implicate and intermediate callidendrous/thamnic rainforest communities. Botanically, the area is considered to be of international significance.

However, the promised boon in tourism has yet to eventuate; numbers of visitors to the Savage River National park are so low it is not worth recording.

The former Tasmanian government proposed to seal a link road to provide access to a look-out and to recreational facilities over looking this magnificent rain forest. The Liberal Party, in opposition, chose to support a series of tourism projects within the region instead of the road. Both plans had some hope of creating jobs and building a tourism industry alongside the existing northwest industries of mining and forestry.

Yet the greens plan is to create a 450,000 ha National park and lock it up as World Heritage. Hopefully they will buy a visitors book to record the success of such a plan.

Take Queensland. A huge expansion of national parks from less than 5% to around 7.5%. What a joke - less than half of what is considered the international standard - and when's the last time Take a look at every environmental indicator relating to biodiversity and they are all in decline. The problem of biodiversity management isn't in the national parks, it's in the mismanagement of all other land. The lack of any duty of care, conservation or protection in lands where humans and biodiversity intersect makes it clear that we still need national parks protected from human uses. We also need to change the way we manage private land, leased land, agricultural land and urban land. When's the last time the AEF supported restrictions on land use held in private hands for purposes of conservation? More national parks, not fewer and a complete change in the idiotic view that we are entitled to use, profit and ultimately do what we want to our own life support systems.

What was the reason for the creation of national parks. I have a feeling that the answer is not so warm and fussie but I do not know the history so I don't know the truth. I have heard talk that they are for colateral for the world bank when we can no longer service our debt. The founder of green peace was kicked out of the movement when progressive socialists took over the movement to further their power grab. People want heaven on earth but because of the fallen Adamic human nature we serve the overlord not the Lord. Commonsense is a very rare commodity in the kingdom of the overlord. Wisdom starts with the fear of the Lord and as we reject him and go our own ways we have to wear the consequences. The only answer that I can give is learn the truth so you can make correct choices for your future, for choices made on asumptions are like flying a plane by the seat of your pants, which makes an exciting read in fiction but is very dangerous in real life.

rstuart resorts to a common but unfair method of arguing by pointing to associations of Max Rheese. Yet these associations have no bearing on the substantive case Max has argued about national parks. He could argue the same case, genuinely held, without the IPA or Gunn's, and it would still need to be responded to on its merits.

Perhaps in the circles in which rstuart mixes, argument-by-association is considered effective but to me it precludes debate of the issue and suggests a very closed mind on rstuart's part. Even worse, it is a case of the mainstream view (represented by rstuart), attempting to vilify a dissident position.

I'm with Karl Marx, whose motto was: De Omnibus Dubitandum (Question everything!). More power to your pen, Max.

@byork: rstuart resorts to a common but unfair method of arguing by pointing to associations of Max Rheese.

No, it is not unfair. Common sense tells you to treat the recommendations of an unbiased friend very differently to those of a salesman selling the product. Max is very definitely in the second category. He is paid to say the things he does.

Be that as it may, if a person comes up to you and says "I am a salesman for product X and want to spin you a spiel about X", then fair enough. Caveat Emptor. As you say, there is no need for myself or anybody else to come along and say "beware he is just a salesman". The facts the salesman presents are still facts, no less useful because they were given to you by a salesman. Since you are aware you are only getting one side of the argument, you can go looking balance elsewhere.

Max wrote this article as the representative of the "Australian Environmental Foundation". Anybody who wasn't familiar with the organisation might assume from the name the article was biased towards the greenie viewpoint. This is reinforced by Max writing as it comes he has some heartfelt concern for Australia's Nation Parks. But in fact the reverse is the case. The AEF is an industry sponsored organisation, and it presents the antithesis of the greenie viewpoint.

Unlike what I was doing in pointing it out, this is both unfair and mildly deceitful. But only mildly, as Max always does add the associations at the end of the article, and to everybody who takes the time to look it up it rapidly becomes obvious the AEF is just a mouthpiece for the forestry industries. The problem is of course not many people will take the time to look it up, and Max is relying on that.

rstuart, you still need to be able to argue against the content and logic of Max Rheese's article. The reason the fallacy of arguing by association is so common is probably because those who use it are incapable of evidence-based logical argument. This may or may not apply to you - but you certainly have not demonstrated any argument against his actual case.

Oh yes, and you are taking a position that reflects the status quo, the Establishment viewpoint, so perhaps there's also the arrogance of those who feel no need to argue.

I was a member of the Australian Conservation Foundation for about ten years. I prefer the Australian Environment Foundation, though, because it is less ideological, not quasi-religious and evidence-based in its approach to environmental issues

@byork: you still need to be able to argue against the content and logic of Max Rheese's article.

I wasn't arguing the points Max raised at all, beyond mentioning that our appalling extinction rate won't be helped by having less National Parks. I don't presume to have the expertise. I simply pointed out which side Max speaks for. This is not unreasonable, given the name of the AEF might lead you to think he is batting for the other side.

You try to shield behind the AEF being a "fact based organisation". That is just spin. Like all good spin, it is in some sense true. I am certain the individuals within the AEF, with the possible exception of Max, do present their actual beliefs and they are fact based as much as anyone's opinion can be. That is not where the bias lies.

The AEF's mode of operation seems to be to find individuals with suitable scientific credentials whose outlook matches their own, and provide a soapbox for them to stand on. Just what those views are is pretty clear from the headlines on their front page http://aefweb.info/ :

- Environmentalists have crossed the Rubicon
- Dump Emissions Trading Scheme Now
- Do-gooders hop on kangaroo-cull bandwagon
- Aboriginal people in Cape York threatened by "Wild Rivers"
- Scientists 'crying wolf' over coral

It is pretty damming. All these "fact based conclusions" from the AEF all point in the one direction, and it ain't "spend money on the Environment".

It is pretty obvious what is going on here. The AEF's corporate masters want to push scientific viewpoints that match their profit motive. So they find people with those viewpoints, and give them bigger megaphones than scientists with opposing views. The finishing touch is to give the megaphone a very misleading name.

The only surprising thing about any of this is the scientists they recruit seem to be completely taken in by all this. They believe they are hired to hand out the unbiased truth, and insist they are doing just that.

rstuart, "corporate masters" can be found on the greenie side, too. The green outlook is dominant, mainstream, largely (but not entirely) supported by the Establishment and Big Business. 'Big Green' is itself a multi-billion dollar international phenomenon - but I think its arguments still have to be addressed regardless of that.

You need to claim that it's all on one side precisely because, as you have admitted, you cannot argue against the content of Max's argument (you lack the expertise which he clearly has).

Would it make you any less alarmed about global warming, for example, to find that the nuclear industry has a strong vested interest (corporate profit) in the dissemination of the notion that increased fossil fuel emissions will result in catastrophe? That the greenies are nuclear's best hope?

If you can't address the arguments, then either investigate for yourself or stop taking a reactionary line that is clearly formulistic (ie, allows you to avoid the need to think critically). You can only appeal to the like-minded - though hopefully they too will be fed up by now with the puerile argument-by-association technique.

Rstuart and byork - this is an interesting discussion. I have long been appalled by the tendency of environmental activists and those who support their campaigns, to attack those with opposing views via their identity rather than their arguments.

This is a disturbing phenomena because it is basically an attempt to invalidate the viewpoints of those who actually know the most about particular topics through working within them on a daily basis. Surely those who work in resource use industries should have a voice in debates that concern their future, and particularly when the public attacks made against them are irrational or inaccurate, as they so often are.

One of the problems is that most of those with a 'green' bent don't question the views coming from their own side of the debate. If they cared to do some basic research - particularly of government websites which contain a huge array of environmental information - they could form their own opinions. If they did, those with an open mind would generally be appalled at the level of misrepresentation of these issues that occurs under the guise of mainstream environmental activism. This is largely why there is a need for groups like the AEF to put some balance into the public debate.

There is also incredible hypocrisy in attacking the modus-operandi of groups like the AEF, which is little different to those of opposing groups. Rstuart criticises the AEF because it "finds individuals with suitable scientific credentials whose outlook matches their own" but how does this differ from The Wilderness Society forming a union with part of the ANU and using the percieved credibility of 'green academics' to push its views?

But of course, I would express such sentiments because I'm also listed on SourceWatch, a site which I believe has a credibility problem by largely listing individuals from only one side of the environmental debate, and choosing not to mention the critically important tertiary qualifications and work experience of spokespersons, in favour of trying to establish evil economic links.

@byork: If you can't address the arguments, then either investigate for yourself or stop taking a reactionary line

Excellent. It seems we agree on my characterisation of the AEF.

As for the greenies being supported by the Establishment and Big Business, it sounds like you are clutching at straws to me. Unlike the AEF, the greenies rely on hordes of motivated, unpaid volunteers. I doubt Big Business pay for a tiny fraction of their man power. And there is no Establishment in the sense you are using it. There are only people and organisations espousing the established view. There is by definition more of them then those espousing the non-established view. It is not unfair, as you seem to imply. It is just how it must be, by definition.

@byork: Would it make you any less alarmed about global warming, for example, to find that the nuclear industry has a strong vested interest

If I evaluated AGW based on news reports, yes it would, particuarly if I found what I assumed to be an unbiased article was funded by the Nuclear Industry. As it happens, unlike the River Red Gums being discussed here, I take a personal interest in AGW and made the time to understand the claims. Flak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model#Flak such as that generated by the AEF is no longer a concern when you do that.

@byork: stop taking a reactionary line that is clearly formulistic

The only statement I have made about the issue was to point out reducing land area devoted to National Parks can only worsen the primary driver for our extinction rate - habitat destruction. It is a statement of the obvious, and as such could hardly be called "reactionary" or "formulistic".

And yet, you seem so touchy.

@byork: If you can't address the arguments, then either investigate for yourself or stop ...

Yes Sir! So do you get to determine what comments are appropriate for all threads, or just this one?

But as a point of order, I don't consider expanding on the biography of the articles author as off-topic. I am surprised you do.

rstuart, stop pretending to be part of some battling under-dog group. The princes and popes are on your side, as are the capitalist media (with a few exceptions). One can hardly watch CNN, MTV, etc. without being exposed to the green message. The World Bank and IMF, not to mention many of the biggest corporations, embrace the reactionary green 'sustainability' agenda and employ green advisers - why not? It really doesn't threaten capitalism, as the emerging green bourgeoisie shows. The Establishment? You have all the state governors and the Governor-General on your side, plus the opinion-making superstructure of capitalism. Is there a pulpit anywhere in Australia where humans are not admonished for their 'sin' of progress through mastery of Nature?

In the absence of student rebelliousness in our universities, the university authorities teach highly one-sided alarmist courses inculcating conservative green ideology (sustainability). The multi-millionaire movie producers in Hollywood make vast sums out of the doomsaying green message and the capitalist Fairfax media makes money out of the alarmist headlines.

Arraigned against you are scientists who dare to dissent against Official Science (and who are vilified for daring to rebel), and, most importantly, the working-class people whose jobs are unnecessarily threatened (but who rarely get a chance in the media, as their talking is done by the union bosses - what Marx called the 'labour aristocrats'). Oh yes, and you ae opposed by Marxist-influenced left-wingers who oppose both capitalism and the green quasi-religion because both hold back the productive forces.

If you can't see how mainstream green ideology has become in capitalist society, then you're deluding yourself. It's significant, though ,that you need to see yourself in that way.

As MWPONTER correctly observes there is a need for the voice of the Australian Environment Foundation. An organisation launched at Tenterfield NSW in 2005 after an inaugural forum at Ballarat on the 150th anniversary of the Eureka Stockade at Ballarat. We need to hear from those scientists, professionals and skilled workers that earn their family income from the sustainable use of our natural resources.

Yet when they do, they are often vilified as being stooges or front groups by organisations such as sauce-watch and the political environmental lobby. The sauce watch entry is not very accurate when it comes to the AEF, but although it is a wiki, you cannot edit it to correct errors.

One of the reasons the AEF and like minded groups such the Institute of Foresters (http://www.forestry.org.au/) or Timber Communities Australia [http://www.tca.org.au/ ] are determined to have their say is that the green groups are now so well funded and resourced by an army of highly paid spin doctors and lobbyists. The Canberra Times in a front page report on 19 December last year identified the big four WWF, Greenpeace, ACF and the Wilderness Society generating $70 million in annual income with more than 60% spent on fundraising, admin or lobbying. Even the Victorian National Parks Association that campaigned against the community Red gum group had a 2006 income of $7 million.

None of this massive income is spent on forests or wilderness once it is ‘saved’. Not even a dollar of its $15 million income is spent by the Wilderness society on the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. The taxpayer pays instead.

Just like the River Red gum, the Valley of the Giants in TWWHA lies forgotten as the protest industry moves onto another marketing venture to drive their fund raising. Perhaps instead of attacking the AEF, rstuart, who enjoys playing the man, not the message, could advise on the corporate governance issues that have arisen out of the AGM of the Wilderness Society and wether its membership is going to get a real say in how the money is spent

@MWPOYNTER: how does this differ from The Wilderness Society forming a union with part of the ANU and using the credibility of 'green academics'?

It doesn't. I didn't say it did, nor did I say it is a bad thing.

The difference is it is perfectly plain from their name what the Wilderness Society is, and what viewpoint they will push. Thus if someone from the Wilderness Society posted a pro-conservation view here I would not feel the need to point "hey, beware this group has an agenda". Is it not perfectly plain from the AEF's name, nor from the way Max wrote his article what viewpoint he is pushing. All I did was describe the agenda the AEF invariably pushes. I do think hiding it is a deliberate ploy on the AEF's part, and so it does need to be spelt out for casual reader.

@MWPOYNTER: This is a disturbing phenomena because it is basically an attempt to invalidate the viewpoints of those who actually know the most about particular topics through working within them on a daily basis.

Rubbish. You are effectively saying forest workers and their companies know more about forests than say park rangers or CSIRO scientists. Certainly they bring a unique viewpoint and that viewpoint needs to be heard, but to say that viewpoint deserves to be rated more highly that everybody else's is an insult to our democracy.

@byork: rstuart, stop pretending to be part of some battling under-dog group.

Where did that come from - little voices in your head? I don't know enough about the River Red Gum issue to choose sides. I made that plain.

@cinders: there is a need for the voice of the AEF

I agree. We would all be far worse off if industry didn't get to put their side of the story. We have the greenies selectively handing out only the facts that support their agenda, so we need someone handing out all information they so conveniently omitted, and that is what the AEF does. I just wish they were more transparent about it.

rstuart
Far from being deceitful, the AEF would argue that because they include scientific expertise, they are far more on an environmental group than the mainstream "green" groups which generally have no expertise themselves, although one (the TWS) has formed a union with some favourable ANU academics.

The fact that you don't regard the AEF as an environmental group says more about the conventional expectation of what an environmental group is.... that is, a group that opposes most human resource use rather than a group that pragmatically sees the need for a balance between conservation and use .... which is the position of the AEF.

Even if you still believe the name AEF to misrepresent their aims and activities, lets not kid ourselves that such a play on words is restricted to non-green environmental groups. What about the Victorian National Parks Association, Environment Tasmania, or Environment East Gippsland. The general public could be forgiven for believing these to be government agencies rather than 'green' lobby groups. Deceitful??

Yes, I am saying that those who work in the forest industry know more than their critics about forests - certainly they do about the breadth and practical management of their day-to-day activities. You have been conditioned by the mainstream environmental groups to think of everyone who works in the forest industry as a chainsaw weilding red-neck - when in reality these companies are managed and staffed by university educated forest scientists, as are the government agencies such as Forestry Tasmania who actually plan and regulate the management of public forests. These companies and agencies are linked with and influenced by the research findings of the CSIRO and other researchers.

These are the sort of people who find a group such as the AEF attractive because it actually recognises the extent of the science that already underpins forest management, and doesn't just wrongly assume that our forests are subject to uncontrolled exploitation which is typically how forestry is portrayed by the mainstream environmental movement.

A little disingenuous of Max to be writing an article under the guise of better "management" of national parks - when Mr Rheese is in fact part of the IPA, which is a recipient of Gunns funding.

I would've hoped that On Line Opinion would require such conflicts of interest to be clearly stated?

I would have also hoped that independent ecologists are better qualified to make comment on our national estate, rather than right-wing thinktanks and people with no knowledge of biodiversity or ecological systems?

HelenL, the argument put forward by Max Rheese is evidence based and cogent and supportable from a left-wing point of view. This is because (what's left of) the left opposes Nature worship and supports economic growth. The Marxist slogan of "Abundance for All" sits far better with the AEF position than the obsession with sustainability of the hard green ideologues.

Also, if you believe in evidence-based argument, you need to be able to prove not only that there is a direct connection between the IPA and Gunns on one hand, and the AEF on the other, but you need to show how any such connection (if it exists - and no-one has presented evidence here) influences Max's argument and evidence.

My guess is that you are incapable of arguing logically and in an evidence-based way against his article.

By contrast, the tone of Max's article invites discussion and debate. That's why I, as a long-time leftist, prefer the AEF to the ACF (of which I was once a member for about a decade)

@byork: Also, if you believe in evidence-based argument, you need to be able to prove not only that there is a direct connection between the IPA and Gunns on one hand, and the AEF on the other, but you need to show how any such connection (if it exists - and no-one has presented evidence here)

- The AEF's address and phone number for the website registration are identical to the address and phone number for the Victorian office of the logging industry front group, Timber Communities Australia.

- The AEF's ASIC registration listed it business as the IPA office.

- The head of the AEF admitted that it is a group set up to protect timber interests and stop resources being taken away from the industry in an interview on ABC Radio station Triple J's Hack program.

All this information is listed on http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Australian_Environment_Foundation , which _was_ given above.

@MWPOYNTER: What about the Victorian National Parks Association, Environment Tasmania, or Environment East Gippsland. The general public could be forgiven for believing these to be government agencies rather than 'green' lobby groups. Deceitful??

Nope. It is pretty clear which side they are batting for.

@MWPOYNTER: Yes, I am saying that those who work in the forest industry know more than their critics about forests - certainly they do about the breadth and practical management of their day-to-day activities.

No one argues that when it comes to managing forest for timer extraction, the people work in the industry know most about it. But I assume you realise that saying the timber industry is the best authority on managing forest for recreational style usage, species protection, rainfall catchment puts you at about the same level of extremism as the "save the lesbian whales" greenies.

rstuart, This is just sad. You clearly ignored my key point: "you need to show how any such connection (if it exists - and no-one has presented evidence here) influences Max's argument and evidence".

I checked out your link and neither it nor you establish any connection between AEF and Gunns, yet you claimed one existed.

The link, and your line of argument, reminds me of when I was in the communist party in the 1970s and those on the far-Right relied on revealing 'sinister' interconnections and attempting to isolate individuals as a ‘fall-back’ position when their arguments failed.

You fail to dent the integrity of Max Rheese’s argument about national parks. Were you to accept his personal integrity, you might have to actually argue against his line.

I'm persisting with this because it strikes me that it is a common fallacious way of arguing on the part of greenies who seek a harmonizing, rather than a progressive, relationship between humans and the natural environment.

What's needed is open and free discussion and debate of the actual issues.

By the way, thank you for drawing my attention to Timber Communities Australia. Far from being our own local 'Great Satan', the TCA believes in the following, and I urge readers to check out their website: http://www.tca.org.au/abouttca/index.shtml (Good on the AEF is they have a close relationship with TCA).

"Mission statement
Our aim is to secure long term access to natural resources to generate employment and a future for regional communities, and to ensure our unique Australian forests are scientifically evaluated and sustainable managed for the benefit of future generations and genetic diversity".

I might post the TCA's "Aims" later, as I'm exceeding the word limit now.

@byork: I checked out your link and neither it nor you establish any connection between AEF and Gunns, yet you claimed one existed.

No, at no stage have I said there was a link between Gunns and the AEF. A direct link between the AEF and the IPA - yes, but not Gunns. Nor did anyone else here. Seeing such a claim comes from someone who is making his stand on "the evidence" is, as you say, just sad.

@byork: You fail to dent the integrity of Max Rheese’s argument about national parks.

I would be surprised if I had, as it was never my intention to do that. You know this, so do you repeatedly bring it up? I was just advising casual readers here whose whose interests the AEF is representing, and it ain't the Environmentalists and greenies. It is such a simple thing, it is a statement of fact and is based on evidence, and yet you seem to have such a problem with it.

Just so there is no confusion on what is claimed here and what isn't, I do claim the links between the AEF and those who want more commercial exploitation of our environment have been very clearly shown. I am not claiming commercial exploitation of our environment is a bad thing. On the contrary, it is an absolutely necessary thing. It is just a question of getting the balance right.

The thrust of this article is built upon practical knowledge of the impacts of creating reserves in a search for political support by the greens. Well done to byork for spotting the weakness in rstuart's attack on the man rather than the message. He seems to be denying that he said in his first post that Max was "a executive directory of the the Australian Environmental Foundation, a group created by the Institute of Public Affairs, which is a turn a group primarily funded by Gunns. The AEF foundation was announced during the May 2005 Annual conference in Launceston of Timber Communities Australia."

Whilst these incorrect claims are attributed to saucewatch, they are wrong as the AEF was launched at Tenterfield in NSW and is funded by its members. If you look at its web site, AEF policies in questioning human caused climate change are in direct contrast with the forest industry who are promoting timber as an effective way to mitigate greenhouse gas emission. Tasmanian integrated timber company Gunns states that its approved modern pulp mill will save one million tonnes of GHG each year.

The AEF promotes real balance between environment, society and the economy, and promotes sustainable development as defined by the Brundtland Commission to alleviate poverty. If I can borrow from an articulate web site, "green ideology opposes rapid development, fears change and romanticises pre-industrial life". Locking up the environment in national parks by the greens destroys jobs, undermines communities and causes distress to families that take pride in managing their environment.

rstuart
How do you propose to get the balance right?

And what is the balance between?

@cinders: [rstuart] seems to be denying that he said ... Australian Environmental Foundation, a group created by the Institute of Public Affairs, which is a turn a group primarily funded by Gunns."

Why would I deny it? The statement is correct. John Roskam, an Executive Director of the IPA, described the AEF thusly: "an extension of our work on the environment, agriculture, genetically modified crops and water issues". http://books.google.com/books?id=sBaH8j_Qs-IC&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=AEF+was+launched+at+Tenterfield&source=bl&ots=kN0jy5B1Hz&sig=fmv4AAPNrbXaC4JI9b5ai8_Ygmg&hl=en&ei=GyywS9P9FdCGkAWxo6GaDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=AEF%20was%20launched%20at%20Tenterfield&f=false

If you, or byork think that means the AEF is linked to Gunns then fair enough - but don't attribute that claim to me. They did give Gunns an environmental award, though. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1752110.htm

@cinders: they are wrong as the AEF was launched at Tenterfield in NSW

An formation of an organisation can be announced in one place and launched in another. There is no conflict in the two claims. Besides, SourceWatch does also say it was launched in Tenterfield. John Howard attended the Launceston function where it was announced. http://www.greenwashreport.org/node/34

From http://aefweb.info/articles53.html:

"For the record, IPA along with about a dozen other interest groups initiated the Eureka Forum in December 2004 which saw the formation of the AEF. This was a widely advertised and supported forum open to anyone. The inaugural board of the AEF had two IPA directors elected by democratic process. Other “interest groups” represented on the AEF board included the Landholders Institute, Timber Communities Australia and Bush Users Group."

Pity he didn't see fit to mention the Eureka Forum was organised by the IPA. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Institute_of_Public_Affairs_Eureka_Forum

@cinders: Locking up the environment in national parks by the greens destroys jobs, undermines communities and causes distress to families that take pride in managing their environment.

Thanks for being so honest on where your sympathies lie in the nature versus commercial exploitation debate. I can see your ideals mesh with the AEF's very neatly. I hope you don't label yourself an Environmentalist, as to do with would be to bastardise the common usage of the word. That is of course exactly what the AEF tries to do.

@rstuart: "I assume you realise that saying the timber industry is the best authority on managing forest for recreational style usage, species protection, rainfall catchment puts you at about the same level of extremism as the "save the lesbian whales" greenies"

If you go back to my post you will see I didn't say the timber industry is the best authority to managing the full suite of values. I said the 'forest industry' which is an amalgum of government forestry agencies and the industry, and the foresters who staff them.

Despite your view to the contrary, critics of the timber industry have never accepted that they know less about logging than those who actually undertake it. Isn't that why they claim it is unsustainable, uneconomic, and a drain on the taxpayer, etc - but, how would they know?

The forestry profession which ultimately plans and regulates forest management, including the areas managed for timber production, is a scientific discipline which embraces study of related disciplines including botany, zoology and ecology. So agencies such as the former Forests Commissions in all states successfully managed the full suite of forest values for decades in the days when they had responsibility for managing most of the public forest.

Again, this is far different to the conventional wisdom which sees foresters as knowing only about timber, and all public forests outside national parks as being 'exploited' for this purpose. In reality, only a minor portion of the State Forest estate has ever been available and suitable for timber, so foresters did actually manage recreation and ecological protection through the management of fire.

In Tasmania, Forestry Tasmania still successfully manages recreation -think of the Tahune Air Walk and the Dismal Swamp facility. In other states, recreational management has generally been passed over to new agencies created for that purpose over the last 15 - 20 years.

@Peter Hume: And what is the balance between?

Between various uses of the forest. Some put value on wood products, some on grazing area, some on cropping, commercial exploitation, some as water catchment areas, some for hunting, some for exploring nature, some as simply preserving habitat - and probably a whole pile of other uses as well.

Some of these uses conflict, some are complementary. It is not a simple picture, and it can't be made in isolation either. What is done with neighbouring areas effects what can be done with this one.

@Peter Hume: How do you propose to get the balance right?

The usual way a democracy does it.

@MWPOYNTER: If you go back to my post you will see I didn't say...

Oh. I didn't read it that way. Fair enough.

@MWPOYNTER: Despite your view to the contrary, critics of the timber industry have never accepted that they know less about logging than those who actually undertake it.

I don't have a view to the contrary.

rtuart
You haven't given any reason why the balance between different competing values or uses should be decided by compulsory process based on deal-making between political parties pork-barrelling in marginal electorates, rather than by voluntary process.

What reason is there to think that the relevant governmental decision-maker is going to know:
a) how different people value the particular resource in issue relative to other possible uses
b) what the balance should be, and why; and
c) how is the exclusion of one person's use, in favour of another's, to be justified relative to those relative values?

But if the presumption is available that the politically appointed decision-maker has such knowledge, then why shouldn't it be generally available, for example, with internet censorship, or cooking dinner, or anything?

By what criterion would the decision-making power be limited?

@Peter Hume: You haven't given any reason why the balance between different competing values or uses should be decided by compulsory process based on deal-making between political parties pork-barrelling in marginal electorates, rather than by voluntary process.

I don't need to Peter. If all parties involved can come to some agreement and dump it on the pollies plate as a done deal then I am sure he would gleefully accept it, and then go out and pronounce "what a good pollie am I for finding such a consensus". So if what you are suggesting should happen is possible, I am sure it would have already happened. The issue is of course this is a zero sum game - you can not convert land to framing and still log it, for instance, so such a consensus is unlikely.

Otherwise - I don't know of a political process that works as well as the one we western societies have developed, which is why I suggested we follow it. Regardless of our differences, I doubt most others here would disagree. It is ugly, it is slow, and possibly inefficient but historically it has worked very well for us.

If you believe they is another method out there you think has worked demonstratively better in practice, I look forward to hearing about it. We have discussed this a few times now, and while I know you have a lot of ideas on how things could be done better I don't recall you pointing out any examples of substantially different society of our size where they have produced better long term outcomes.

RStuart says "National Parks provide habitat for our wildlife. They don't need to "managed" to do this, certainly not in the way the Forestry Industry would be managing them.As the country with the highest mammal extinction rate on the planet, our wildlife needs all the help it can get."

Correct me if I am wrong but I read he/she is implying that areas managed by foresters for multiple use do not protect wildlife and that Australia'a mammalian extinction is due to forestry. Yet, only one of those 17 mammals lived in a forest - the tassie tiger - and forestry never caused it to become extinct. So unless rstuart has evidence to rewrite history, I would like to know where his/her evidence is for link between forestry and mammalian extinctions? Lindenmayer tried this trick in an article and I had a field day with him.

Also he claims the IPA is primarily funded by Gunns. This is the first I have heard of this - any real evidence apart from a newspaper claim or TWS hysterics.

@tragedy: Correct me if I am wrong but I read he/she is implying that areas managed by foresters for multiple use do not protect wildlife and that Australia'a mammalian extinction is due to forestry.

Consider yourself corrected then. What I wrote is what I meant - and nothing more.

@tragedy: Also he claims the IPA is primarily funded by Gunns.

He was wrong. He quoted from memory, and he should have taken the time to look it up. The word "primarily" should not have been there.

So rstuart, how much does Gunns donate to the IPA, if it is not "primarily" ?

I don't know the amount, tragedy. The IPA is not a particularly open organisation. All I know what is in the sourcewatch page reports Mike Nathan, once Executive Director of the IPA, said the IPA received funding from Gunns in an article in the AFR. Sadly the AFR doesn't have the article on line, so I can't give you a link. But you will find many references to that article on the web.

rstuart, that's not evidence - that's a rumour.

But, to return to my original point, it proves nothing about the content of the IPA's arguments and analyses, even if it were true.

This fallacious method of arguing by association is very effective for the green movement in particular and the pseudo-left in general, and that is why it needs to be identified and opposed.

In the meantime, Max Rheese's perfectly reasonable call for a new paradigm on national parks remains unanswered.

@byork: that's not evidence - that's a rumour.

If an article appearing in a national newspaper and written by the then Executive Director of the organisation saying it gets its funds from Gunns isn't evidence, then I don't know what is.

@byork: But, to return to my original point, it proves nothing about the content of the IPA's arguments and analyses, even if it were true.

You keep repeating this point. Don't you have another one?

@byork: In the meantime, Max Rheese's perfectly reasonable call for a new paradigm on national parks remains unanswered.

Hardly. Others such as @next addressed the article directly.

rstuart, the evidence would be the content of the original article, which we would have to see and then critically assess (rather than rely on your memory and interpretation of it).

You are not out to do a 'public service' by implying a link between Gunns and AEF (via IPA), you are out to stifle and avoid debate - that's why you have been unable/unwilling to challenge Max's piece

@byork: the evidence would be the content of the original article, which we would have to see and then critically assess

You seem to be a avid follow of the church of science, so let me put in those terms for you. I gave you all the information you need to reproduce experiment and its results. To wit: you could toddle along to the AFR's offices, and look up the article in question.

Now as it happens, I am a nice sort of guy and would normally make that drop dead easy for you by supplying a link. But I can't in this case, as it appears the article is hidden behind the AFR's pay wall.

Be that as it may, I have passed the golden test for scientific evidence - I have given you all the information needed to reproduce the results. Indeed it appears others have done just that and reported what they saw on the web. The reports aren't difficult to find, just google the citations given in sourcewatch. Whether you choose to do any of this is up to you, but please don't claim it is somehow my problem if you don't do it. The fact that you haven't done it as yet makes me think you aren't really interested in the answer.

rstuart, that response is, well, er, simply bizarre, and I feel no need to continue with you.

Rstuart

Your reasoning is circular.

The question is, what reason is to think that “getting the balance right” is going to be done any better by a process of political decision-making, than by a process of non-political decision-making. To answer ‘the usual reasons in a democracy’ is to assume a process of political decision-making and thus to assume what is in issue.

If the interests behind different inconsistent resource uses can come to an agreement, then there is no need for a political solution is there?

Jardine K. Jardine: The question is, what reason is to think that “getting the balance right” is going to be done any better by a process of political decision-making, than by a process of non-political decision-making.

If the agreement they come to is within the law, of course it is better if they just sort it out between themselves. As I said in the post you are responding to, even if it is not within the law the odds are if all parties involved can come to an agreement the pollies will just rubber stamp it by changing the law appropriately.

But that is all beside the point, as I also said it looks unlikely the parties will come to an agreement in this case. As you say, a political process is then required to force some resolution. There are lots of political processes to choose from, and I happen to think our federal system is one of the best. There is nothing circular about the reasoning at all.

However, it is not about that, is it? I see you elsewhere you said:

"productive processes to *satisfy human wants*. ... and stop your nasty fascist religious worship of omnipotent government.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3423#81340

They look like they come from the same song book Peter Hume uses. Do you guys have a name for your brand political philosophy?

>As I said in the post you are responding to, even if it is not within the law the odds are if all parties involved can come to an agreement the pollies will just rubber stamp it by changing the law appropriately.”

I don’t understand what you mean. What would be an example of the parties to a conflict over natural resource uses coming to an agreement, about how to resolve it that is not within the law; and what would be the example of the pollies changing the law to formalise it?

If the parties to an issue can agree within the law, there is no need of a forced resolution. But if they do not agree, that still of itself does not justify a political process to force a resolution, any more with conflicting desires to use land, than with conflicting desires about whether to have sex, or conflicting desires about what to publish on the internet.

> Do you guys have a name for your brand political philosophy?

Freedom.

@Jardine K. Jardine: What would be an example of the parties to a conflict over natural resource uses coming to an agreement

Everyone agrees that half the forest is used for logging, and half is left in its natural state.

But why do you need an example? The concept of a group coming to an agreement isn't that difficult to understand.

@Jardine K. Jardine: what would be the example of the pollies changing the law to formalise it?

Copyright, or at least was, done in that way. Every time a new technology came along, a huge barney breaks out and eventually a compromise is reached which becomes the new copyright law.

@rstuart: Do you guys have a name for your brand political philosophy?
@Jardine K. Jardine: Freedom.

Quaint. I see a site you quote on occasion, http://mises.org/, calls it the Austrian School of economics. In any case, as I pointed out to Peter, people living in societies with no central government end up dead, or enslaved to those that do have a central government. But prior to that they probably considered themselves free, as you say.

rstuart
>>@Jardine K. Jardine: What would be an example of the parties to a conflict over natural resource uses coming to an agreement

>Everyone agrees that half the forest is used for logging, and half is left in its natural state.

That's not what I asked, which was, What would be an example of the parties to a conflict over natural resource uses coming to an agreement that is *not* within the law?

If you're answer is the same, ie, that everyone agrees that half the forest is used for logging, and half is left in its natural state, then your reasoning remains circular. Because the issue is what reason is there to think that the balance between conflicting uses is best determined by a political process of decision-making; and you answer, the usual reasons in a democracy, which is to say, a political process of decision-making. Thus you continue to assume what is in issue, which is circular. Else why would not people agree to use the forest half-half like that without any political decision on the matter?

But the problem is not just the defect of central planning in reason. It's also the defect in practice. If democracy is more likely to be able to find the balance between conflicting resource uses than, say, a monarchy or a military dictatorship, it must be because there's something about majority opinion that is more likely to be able to find the balance between conflicting uses. The government claimsthat it represents the majority in everything it does, even though there is no way of knowing whether that is true, because the electoral process does not enable electors to vote on individual issues or governmental actions. So it’s an irrebutable presumption, a fiction, a furphy. If it were true, there would be no ground for criticizing the government, ever.

But appeal to “democracy” is an assertion about the general optimality of majority opinion, not specifically a principle for resolving conflicting resource uses. There is no intrinsic reason why it should be limited to resource uses, and why the majority aka the government, should not decide, as many people think they should what private consensual sexual relationships should be illegal, and what you should be able to read, and what people should be permitted to eat. It is a creed of unlimited government.

It is no answer to say we must have central government, because even if that is granted, it still provides no reason why conflicts over resource uses should not be decided by reference to principles and private property and individual freedom upheld by central government.

@Jardine K. Jardine: an example of the parties to a conflict over natural resource uses coming to an agreement that is *not* within the law?

Allowing some clear felling where there is a blanket ban on clear felling.

@Jardine K. Jardine: the issue is what reason is there to think that the balance between conflicting uses is best determined by a political process of decision-making

Having a pollie make a decision isn't the best, having everyone come to an agreement is best. The question is what is plan B if that fails. I have told you what my plan B is, and there is nothing circular about it. What is your plan B?

@Jardine K. Jardine: The government claimsthat it represents the majority in everything it does

But they don't claim that. They often make decisions they know will be unpopular, because they don't feel like they have any choice. The proposed Queensland Government asset sell off is but one example. In fact, often they come to the electoral process with a package of policies, some of which they know are unpopular.

@Jardine K. Jardine: But appeal to “democracy” is an assertion about the general optimality of majority opinion

There are a lot of big words there, as there tends to be in arguments about philosophy. But you miss the bigger picture. Most don't give a rats about philosophy - yours, mine or anybody else's. What they do care about is of all the political systems we have seen over the millennia, democracy has been the most successful in terms of delivering human wants. You can argue till your blue in the face that it is lousy at doing that, but you are going to have awful trouble convincing anybody given the history of human society.

It doesn't help that your argument is purely philosophical. You offer no statistics, hard login like say game theory - nothing that gives me any confidence what you sayis anything more than a sticky web of self supporting logic.

>>an example of the parties to a conflict over natural resource uses coming to an agreement that is *not* within the law?

> Allowing some clear felling where there is a blanket ban on clear felling.

Let us assume at first that the forest is privately owned. In that case, we are supposing that the parties are able to come to an agreement about how best to balance their conflicting wants to use the forest, and the only thing stopping them is pre-existing laws that prevent the owner of the forest from using it as he thinks best. Therefore what is preventing the resource from being used to achieve the best balance as between conflicting uses, is the law, which represents political decision-making on resource use. Therefore there is no reason to presume that political decision-making is any better at getting the balance right between different conflicting uses, and assuming it is, is assuming what is in issue.

But if the forest is publicly owned, then it begs the question whether government is presumptively better at deciding the best balance, which is to assume what is in issue.

> Having a pollie make a decision isn't the best, having everyone come to an agreement is best. The question is what is plan B if that fails. I have told you what my plan B is, and there is nothing circular about it. What is your plan B?

Just because you want to use your property to do one thing, and I want to use it to do something else, doesn’t mean we should be treated as having an equal claim, or that I should have the benefit of government to force a compromise.

Plan B is that in the event of a disagreement the property owner decides, and those who don't agree need to buy the forest, or make some other consent-based arrangement with the owner, such as lease, or payment for specific product. For example, those who want the forest to be used for habitat for parrots, can pay the owner an agreed price per parrot.

This would enable maximal accommodation of different conflicting interests, to the extent they aren't zero-sum, in which case a compulsory override still cannot produce a better result.

But it would require those who want parrots, to pay the cost of them relative to the cost of the values of the other products of other possible uses, such as timber. The problem is that the conservationists know that in that case the property will run at a loss, and they will have to pay the costs of the values they assert. Since they don’t want to do that, they prefer to assert the supposed moral imperative of their own preference and force the issue.

But there is a movement for privately-funded conservation, which I think is great.

>…What they do care about is … [what political system is] … most successful in terms of delivering human wants.

Perhaps so, but that still doesn’t say why, within the democratic framework, the decisions should not be based on private property rights, rather than on politically-based interventions that override private property rights, whether or not they also represent the opinion of the majority.

>It doesn't help that your argument is purely philosophical. You offer no statistics, hard login like say game theory - nothing that gives me any confidence what you say is anything more than a sticky web of self supporting logic.

That is fair enough; and there is a problem of how we are to know the truth of propositions that are highly complex and full of many kinds of uncertainty.

However data and statistics do not interpret themselves; that requires theory. Clearly the absolute minimum is that propositions must not breach the rules of logic. If the theory is not logically valid, we will end up with the wrong conclusions no matter how good the data sets are. Since the interventionists’ arguments is circular, therefore it does not get to square one, and hence even force, or majority opinion, or popularity cannot make it true or workable. It will remain in the realm of irrational beliefs.

@Jardine K. Jardine: the decisions should ... be based on private property rights

This is the nub of it, isn't it? I hope so, because at it seems our "circular argument" is at cross purposes - we seem to be talking about two different things. You seem to be saying no central government is needed at all, and I am talking about the best sort of central government to have.

I expect my reaction to basing decisions on property rights won't be new to you, so I be brief. I am interested in what your response is.

My problem is that property isn't allocated equally. So it isn't one vote one value. Which effectively means by choosing your system, I have chosen to let the rich run the earth. That would not be my choice.

It’s true that property isn't allocated equally, but neither are height, weight, intelligence, singing ability, number of children, ambitions, and so on. There is no good reason why equality should be the criterion of decision-making.

Let's follow the piece of string to the both ends. Suppose people were equal: what would it mean? Well, it's literally meaningless, isn't it? They're not equal and they can't ever be equal.

But if people were equal, then no-one could obtain any advantage from entering into relations with others; and human society would come to an end.

Equality is an abstract perfect conception, suited to mathematics perhaps, but neither true, nor desirable, nor attainable in social theory or practice. For example, some people want children and others don't. How, or why, could they ever be treated “equally”? And while applying it to others, you don’t apply it to yourself. How could you?

Left to themselves, people won't just voluntarily make themselves equal, will they? If they would, there would be no issue. It will have to be done by force. But if it is to be done by force, what should the limits of that force be? Should everyone be entitled to equality in everything? Should everyone have an equal claim on the common storehouse regardless of what they have produced? But if not, why not? Should childless couples be equally entitled to children as fecund couples? Should pretty women be forced to provide sex to ugly or violent or diseased men so they can be equal with handsome or charming or healthy men? And why should equality be limited to the population within a state? Why should not everyone in the world have an equal claim to your house, your land, your food, your clothing and your internet service?

Political power is also not allocated equally. Those in marginal seats, or benefitting from back-room pre-selection deals, or parties holding the balance of power – these have greatly unequal power compared to everyone else. And the politicians as a whole have a gross inequality of political power compared to everyone else.

Also, the inequality between the state and any given citizen is far greater than the inequality between the richest and the poorest citizen, even if the only difference were the monopoly of violence that states claim; and that is far from being the only difference.

In any event, most questions are not between the richest and the poorest; they are not about some people living in luxury while others starve. Rather, they are about conflicting wants, often of the same people. Those who want timber, and those who want parrots, are not two separate and hostile tribes. They are the same individuals with conflicting wants. And even where they are of different individuals, that is still no reason why everyone's different wants and values should be, or should be attempted to be submitted to the criterion of equality.

But more importantly, since property is wholly or partly the result of human effort, to assert a right of equality is to assert that some people are morally entitled to use coercion to appropriate the labour of others, which is far more anti-social and exploitative than the principle of property.

“You seem to be saying no central government is needed at all, and I am talking about the best sort of central government to have.”

As I have said, even with central government, or with the best sort of central government, that still begs the question why the use of a given resource should be decided by government.

It still involves a creed:
1. That is fundamentally impossible, unreasonable and anti-social
2. That envisages no limits on government power and is far more abusive than property
3. That would necessarily involve much greater destruction to the environment.

Also, in the absence of political decision-making on resources, the holders of property are unconditionally subject to the sovereignty of the mass of the people as consumers. The property-holders must serve the wants of the people or they will go broke and lose their property into the hands of those who will.

@Jardine K. Jardine: There is no good reason why equality should be the criterion of decision-making.

Well, actually there are good reasons. Despite your abhorrence of government, people have to agree to subject themselves to your rule by wealth. Either that or be forced into it.

People are simply more likely to agree to be part of a situation if they perceive they are being treated equally. That isn't some fanciful assertion. It has proved repeatedly in psychology experiments. So if you want to have a society that doesn't spend much time and effort forcing their citizens to go along with the rules, basing it on equality of at least the perception of it is a dammed good way to go.

As you have observed, democracy doesn't mean absolute equality. Wealth in particular isn't distributed equally. But we citizens put up with that because most of us perceive it to be about as close as we are likely to get to absolute equality.

To me it looks like you have got this all backwards. You have observed that well running markets deal with things fairly and efficiently, therefore we should use markets to run society. There are two flaws in this. Markets don't always run well. Even when they do run well for a while, they often go spectacularly awry. In fact they often can't exist without government intervention to ensure there is competition.

Secondly, allocation of resources clearly isn't the whole problem. People have been known to kill each other over things that weren't about property. Arguments about religion, ethnicity, and sex all come to mind. Which isn't surprising, when you consider out of our population of 22 million, only 10.8 actually work. And they only spend 1/2 of their waking hours doings that. So overall, we spend less than 1/4 of our time engaging in the very "wealth creation" you are trying to say we should be using to run our lives!

You are trying to set up a dichotomy between ‘rule by wealth’ and ‘treating people equally’; but it is a false dichotomy.

When you go to the shop to buy an orange, that’s not ‘rule by wealth’. Everyone, by all their decisions to buy or abstain from buying, participates in determining the total configuration of resources will be used. Are you oppressing the orchardist, who must obey your commands or die of starvation? Is he oppressing you? One of the many problems with the equalitarian creed is that inequality inheres in all transactions, and so the equalitarians regard all transactions, and therefore human society, as intrinsically exploitative.

You have not attempted to deny that people are factually unequal, that a state of equality is impossible to attain and would be the end of human society, that the inequality between government and the individual is greater than between the richest and the poorest individual, and therefore government does not treat people equally. And in any event, most questions do not involve a question as between the richest and the poorest.

You have not shown any reason why resource use decisions should not be based on property and liberty rather than on political decision-making; other than to make groundless appeal to hyberbole about anarchy. Thus your argument continues circular, to which you have added misrepresentation and ignoring refutations, and I am tired of pointing out fallacies. Good-bye.

@Jardine K. Jardine: You are trying to set up a dichotomy between ‘rule by wealth’ and ‘treating people equally’; but it is a false dichotomy.

No, its not. The nations of the world effectively run the planet the way you want now. The richest, the US, sits at the top of the heap. It has the most say in world organisations like the UN, ISO, World Bank and so on. All of Africa sits at the bottom, despite having 3 times the population. In no sense are the poor in Africa treated equally to a US citizen.

@Jardine K. Jardine: You have not attempted to deny that people are factually unequal

You are labouring a statement of the obvious. A BMW and a VW are obviously unequal too. But if you are planning a cities roads they are both just cars. Societies work best if people enthusiastically cooperate. And when it comes to designing a society, like the BMW and VW we are equivalent where it matters. All of us are more likely to be enthusiastic participants in that society if we perceive we are treated equally. Nobody is going to consider awarding their personal influence over what happens according to their wealth as being treated equally.

@Jardine K. Jardine: You have not shown any reason why resource use decisions should not be based on property and liberty rather than on political decision-making

I don't know what "based on liberty" means. As for basing it on property, I have said the egalitarian societies where people are encouraged to consider everyone equals, with an equal say demonstratively work better than non-egalitarian ones. Such societies currently rule the planet.

@Jardine K. Jardine: other than to make groundless appeal to hyberbole about anarchy

Err, I didn't do that, for the obvious reason what you are proposing isn't anarchy. It is a fairly ridged set of rules based on property.