Pelican
“We need an economic system that works for us not against us - economic systems are man-made they do not occur naturally and as such can be tweaked to support communities as people see fit.”

If that doctrine were true, we could create bread out of stones; and communism would be possible. There is such a thing as truth; not everything is “ideology” and opinion.

mikk
According to your reasoning, there could be no liberty unless all property was held in common. Not even Marx went that far, since he restricted his communism to capital property.

More communist than Karl Marx – that’s quite an achievement. But it doesn’t make communism viable or ethical.

Rhian
“Most Australians support some form of mixed economy, with the market doing what it does best (allocating resources efficiently, spurring innovation, facilitating growth) and the government correcting the market’s failures and attending to our collective needs and wants. “

There is no evidence for this, since
1. the government takes the money whether you agree or not
2. they spend it on anything they want. Is politicians’ superannuation a collective need or want?
3. if everyone in the population was compulsorily indoctrinated for 10 years from a young age by the church, would you expect them to be able to see that the church’s claims are completely groundless? It is no different with the state.

All the same defects that underlie the belief in Marxist socialism, also underlie the belief in part-socialism or ‘mixed economy’, for exactly the same reasons. The fact that the one thing uniting the part-socialists is an understanding that a private sector is necessary to stop the descent into poverty and despotism says it all.

Just because people, if left free to choose, don’t buy or sell things that you think they should buy or sell, that doesn’t mean there’s a “market failure”. There’s such a thing as scarcity.

There is no universally accepted definition of a public good or a collective need because it’s arbitrary. Mikk thinks all property is a collective need; Passant esq. thinks all capital property...

… is a collective need; until recently many thought airlines were a collective need; now Labor says high-speed internet is a collective need.

There is no general agreement on the definition of market failure or public goods, because it’s arbitrary: https://mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf . But even if there were, still there is no reason or evidence to think that government has any competence at correcting, or superiority at providing them, any more than there is to believe that the Church communes with God.

If government could presumptively “correct market failures” then John Passant would be right and full communism would work. It can’t.

Once government is granted political direction of the fruits of other people’s labour, there is no way to constrain them to spend it on what is important or collective needs. They will aggrandise their own income, power and prestige. They will bribe anyone for votes, no matter how divisive or wasteful. They will multiply a hundredfold the problem of free-riding, externalities, corruption, and the direction of scarce resources to less important uses. Common ownership or control turns everything it touches into a tragedy of the commons, starting with the consolidated revenue: http://economics.org.au/2010/07/the-tragedy-of-the-tax-pool-commons/

All the socialists call for political direction of resources, and then complain bitterly when the government spends billions on things like aggressive war, favouring big corporations and banks, creating inflation and bubbles, rigging the system against the workers, driving small businesses to the wall, and failing to efficiently manage hospitals, schools, and railways.

The belief that you can have a bit of judicious re-distribution of wealth without these massive negative consequences is false. You can’t. That’s the whole point! It is not “blind faith” to point this out: it’s blind faith to believe in it.

But the socialists never get it! They see the *only possible* economic and social results of their policies and say “It’s that bloody capitalism again!”

Just like John Passant.

But if you’re looking at the result of public ownership or direction of the means of production, the problem by definition is not capitalism – it’s socialism however you re-name it.

Peter Hume claims to know the truth. We are in the presence of greatness.

I sometimes wonder if you are just being recalcitrant but maybe you just really don't get it.

"If that doctrine were true, we could create bread out of stones; and communism would be possible. There is such a thing as truth; not everything is “ideology” and opinion."

This is a ridiculous analogy and you know it - economic systems don't just occur naturally just as stones don't naturally turn into bread. Man (usually an elite) decide on the form and dynamic of those systems even if he/she does not always know or understand the resultant effects.

Truth! It is only your truth.

<<According to your reasoning, there could be no liberty unless all property was held in common.>>

Depends what you mean by "property".
Is it just land and capital goods? Consumer items? Ideas? Inventions? Art?
All these things are conflated into this mythical "property" as if they are the same. As if there is no difference between owning a toothbrush or owning a huge estate. No difference between owning an Ipod or owning the "rights" to a lifesaving drug. No difference between owning your home and owning BHP. As anyone can see these things are very different and used in very different ways.
The "property" I have a problem with is that which is used to exploit and use people. That "property" which restricts and denies peoples "liberty".

Dear Peter Hume,

Socialism implies neither government ownership nor a command economy. It means ownership in common. That ownership may be in the form of a consumer cooperative where customers own the enterprize and decide on its policies or a producer cooperative where the producers (eg dairy farmers) own the cooperative and decide on its policies. The USSR and other Marxist economies have been called socialist. In reality they were state capitalist without the disciplne of the market. Command economies simply don't work. However, ownership in common with the various enterprizes owned in common competing with each other works very well. That is the case in a large segment of the Scandinavian economies.

Ownership means control of what you own. In the case of most corporations 'owned' by the stockholders that is not the case. There is a managerial class making decisions. If they make bad decisions they leave with a golden handshake. It is control without responsibility or ownership.

Cooperatives combine capitalism and socialism. They are capitalist in that they succeed or fail according to how well they deal with the market and are managed by the owners. They are socialist since they are owned in common.

They are the key to the high standard of living of the Scandinavian people. The democratic procedures used in the control of the cooperatives directly translate to a democrat spirit in politics.

*No difference between owning your home and owning BHP*

Ah Mikk, but BHP is not owned by any one. Its owned by half a
million Australians directly, another 8 million or so Australians,
through their super funds.

You are free to increase your share of BHP if you wish. Save
your pennies and buy a few more shares. Its your choice.
That is how free you are!

But of course you might actually have to work a bit, to
save those pennies. Most who I know, who dream of a socialist
takeover, are those less keen to actually have to work for
their share. They want it without effort.

Life just ain't that simple.