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.