What evidence would satisfy you?

I think Squeers and Chris have had some Ideas slightly confused; simply applying the wrong label to the problem as they see it or perhaps mislead in the process of analytical facts.

The obvious State Capitalism Oligopolies and Monopolies Control can only exist if, and granted by The State, and Sanctioned by the State; the question that ought to be put is why? The answer is Obvious.

It is Far from the theory of private enterprise and free market capitalism; Monopoly control in a free market cannot exist, I thought that was obvious.

Take the Banking Industry for the best Monopoly control example , then Introduce Centralised Banking; it is the fabrication of alleged wealth by simply plucking it out of nowhere; so added to the counterfeit money and valueless paper or plastic of billions of dollars, this is another source they did not have to print anything other than a Cheque ; Then Loan it out at six times
; they create further valueless nothing out of nothing but equal billions in Phantom wealth. Just by plucking it out of the air and lending it out as capitol.

That sounds like an extensive Criminal Monopoly network to me, and that is Centralise GOVERNMENT all over the world.
And has been for many years.
Political Capitol is all that it is and Fascism - Socialism of the right.

Peter,

any evidence that demonstrates that a society is better off without some redistribution than with.

It could be indicators of wealth, education, crime rates, env damge, lifespan, health, whatever.

So in other words, from the fact that violent interventions exist, you conclude that they always increase the fairness and affluence of a society? If someone points out that they are not in fact fair but cause problems of social injustice that you yourself don't like, and that they do not in fact increase the affluence of a society but reduce it, you respond by reasoning that the fact that government exists, proves that its interventions increase the fairness and affluence of society.

Can you see that that is a completely circular belief? How is it falsifiable?

Peter, the implication of govt doing wrong is a bit simplistic given that the people give support for such policies election after election.

To a large degree, you are attacking democracy itself. It is simly not enough to attack the messenger.

AS I will demonstrate in my response, even the Howard govt had little interest in upholding the ideals of Hayek over pragmatic politics.

It is not that they are criminals, but that this is the way of the world and modern politics from a realist understanding. Most Aust's s and Westerners do believe in a certain way of life. Rent-seeking, or whatever you want to call it, is part of that trade-off in democratic politics.

That is why we have different political parties and interest groups who can expose strengths and weaknesses as best as a liberal democracy can.

There is no model for a perfect society in a world where we will continue to compete for resources and the influence of certain ideas.

Anyway, I will leave the rest to my coming response.

In other words, your belief is unfalsifiable.

The very fact that government exists proves to you irrebutably that its actions increase fairness and affluence. So I can point out cases where policies actually reduce fairness and affluence, and you can agree, but then you just recirculate back to your unfalsifiable belief that the government must be right.

If that were true, then your original question is not genuine, since *any* policy, being done by government, would automatically mean that society was made fairer and more affluent thereby.

It's circular. It’s completely illogical. And after this is pointed out to you, you still persist in it.

Your argument would only make sense if the prime value were democracy rather than fairness or affluence, and if the truth was whatever the majority said it was.

But this is nonsense. Reality exists, it imposes real limitations on human actions, we can’t increase crop fertility by sacrificing virgins, and we can’t increase fairness and prosperity by printing money, no matter how many people vote for it.

“AS I will demonstrate in my response, even the Howard govt had little interest in upholding the ideals of Hayek over pragmatic politics."

All that proves is that Howard also embraced policies that made society less fair and affluent, on the same rationale that the truth doesn’t matter so long as one can get one’s snout in the trough.

It is only intellectually honest to call something pragmatic if it is capable of acting as a means to the end it is intended to achieve.

“Fighting for peace is like f**cking for virginity.” It is either confused or intellectually dishonest to acknowledge that printing money does not in fact make society fairer or more affluent, and then claim that it is “pragmatic” to do it in order to make society fairer or more affluent.

“If we value the pursuit of knowledge, we must be free to follow wherever that search may lead us.”
Adlai Stevenson