Liberalism is sometimes used to denote a belief in liberty and freedom from coercion, which argues against government interference in general. But it is also used, as in the USA, to denote political opinions in favour of thoroughgoing government intervention at all levels. Since Chris Lewis doesn’t define liberalism, it is unclear what he’s talking about.

But assuming that he’s talking about the pro-liberty kind of liberalism, this proceeds from a radical critique of government. Since Chris Lewis accepts the arguments for liberty in some respects, therefore the “assumption close” he uses as his basic intellectual method in this article is completely illegitimate. The assumption close is: “Be reasonable – everyone must agree that my view of government is right as a precondition of entering into the discussion.” Government is presumed to represent “society”, even though the issue is precisely whether government does this better than voluntary interactions. The arguments for institutionalized coercion are presumed to be “common sense”. Even Chris Lewis himself is unable to provide any principle by which this could be determined, other than the manoeuvres for advantage of political parties. But this assumes that the current configuration of vested interests in political power automatically represents the greater good – which is precisely what’s in issue.

Chris you really must try to free yourself of the intellectual vice of arguing in a circle, assuming in your premises what you are seeking to prove in your conclusion.

I’ll give one tiny example. Yesterday I talked with a guy who owns a small quarry. He used to go and get sand from private properties and sell it to builders. But now that is illegal – government owns “the environment”. The result is that the only sand that’s available is more expensive.

This is only one unintended consequence of government interventions driving up the cost of housing. There are hundreds of such interventions. But when the statists and socialists and conservatives see “housing unaffordability”, do they question their assumption that government must be the solution, rather than the problem? Not a bit of it.

Chris's circular creed shows why.

Peter,

I was waiting for your usual rant. You did not disappoint.

You state "Chris you really must try to free yourself of the intellectual vice of arguing in a circle, assuming in your premises what you are seeking to prove in your conclusion".

Now, i know you are committed to your ideals. No problem, we all need our beliefs and guidelines to give us purpose in this mad world when only only a minority of people in the world (extreme libertarians) can actually believe that a few simple principles will save the world.

Forgive me, but I will continue to offer my flawed politics summary in a flawed world. you can stick to Mises or whoever.

You remind me of the simplistic left, you extreme libertarians just rant and whinge about the world as it changes before your eyes, because the world never changes in accordance to the way you want. The very different behaviour of actors and nations makes it laughable that anyone could claim the answers merely lie in govts getting out the way.

Well keep dreaming, your wishes are never going to happen. There are no pragmatic politicians out there in Australia that are going to follow your lead. Not Tony Abbott, not John Howard, not anyone. I have faith (or a hope) that Australia will always have sensible and pragmatic politicians and debate.

Why? Because change occurs incrementally and pragmatically in such a complex world.

And as Samuel Huntington notes, the solving of one problem leads to new problems. That is reality.

So, yes, by all means rave on in your own disneyland terms, but do not get too upset when few listen.

If you actually believe that govt should get out of the way to solve housing, or any other problem, I am sure that there would be a lot of policy makers interested in your ideas, which should always be backed by evidence.

I do not pretend to have the answers. You, and your libertarian extremist mates, do.

Peter.

And since you are so smug about what defines liberalism, much like a nerd would do reading an argument and making a cheap point, I argue that the most important feature of liberalism is the freedom of people to think and use their political opportunities to influence the political process.

So sorry, on most counts of actual policy, the results have meant you guys have lost the debates.

Was there ever a time in history of Western civilisation where extreme libertarians ideas ever won the debates?

What a lightweight article. No definition of "extreme libertarian", no examples or issues nominated, just an old fashioned ad hom against Chris Berg (who writes far more persuasively).

Anyone can argue in favour of government intervention; even libertarians do in limited cases. But arguing against non-intervention in a generalised sense is certainly not common sense.

Chris
It's not a "rant", I show that you haven't defined liberalism even though the term is used inconsistently and your argument is about it. I show that you ignore the negative consequences of government with a specific example, and how how this invalidates your circular assumption of what is in issue, You have advanced nothing to defend your argument but personalise the issues to me, and re-define the issues in terms of political expedience and institutionalised coercion, which is what's in issue in the first place.

There was a time in the western world when people thought the proper role of government was to protect inefficient businesses from their more efficient competition, and to protect businesses from competition from free trade. The very existence of the USA and the Commonwealth of Australia, and our high standards of living is because of the victory of libertarian ideas in favour of free trade and against mercantilism, otherwise the states within these unions would still be practising the kind of anti-social protectionism which you advocate between states outside these unions.

Similarly the abolition of slavery was an "extreme libertarian idea" in its time. Yet the arguments in favour of slavery - necessary to fund public utilities, sanctioned by legality, pragmatic for production, beneficial for its victims, - are ethically and economically no different from the arguments you assume in favour of taxation.

I am not an "extremist" for asserting the moral and practical right of people to be free from arbitrary coercion. You are the extremist for advocating aggressive means for which you are unable to supply ethical or logical justification. The intellectually honest thing for you to do is
a) correctly represent libertarian arguments, and
b) refute them.

You are doing neither.

Why would I want to focus on Chris Berg, or any other libertarian argument. The article is titled Australian liberalism: the rocky road ahead.

I think any fair minded reader would note from my opening paragraphs that i am rejecting stupid propositions such as pure free trade or open borders for immigration. After all, few Australians would actually agree with Berg. Hence, my imperfect article reminds people why both major parties have to be pragmatic not accept arguments more styled in a world of make belive.

I would love to have a written debate with Chris Berg on different issues; bring it on.

Peter, unfortunately i am going to use my last response.

Well i am a supporter of liberalism in the sense that i support liberal ideas, as you suggest, but I am also aware of why interventionist policies are introduced to preserve the national interest. They may indeed be wrong sometimes, but I support the pragmatic tradition of liberal democracy which determines the level of govt intervention in line with the demands of the international economy.

You say,

"There was a time in the western world when people thought the proper role of government was to protect inefficient businesses from their more efficient competition, and to protect businesses from competition from free trade. The very existence of the USA and the Commonwealth of Australia, and our high standards of living is because of the victory of libertarian ideas in favour of free trade and against mercantilism, otherwise the states within these unions would still be practising the kind of anti-social protectionism which you advocate between states outside these unions".

Well come on, there is a whole of factors that explain such success, is there not. In regard to Britain and the US, the importance of liberal ideas is matched by some brutal realities.

I do indeed share the thrust of libertarian ideas. That is why I am a supporter of free trade, within reason. That is why, I ignored an academic telling me to send my proposed article attacking the Home Insulation Program to Quadrant on the basis that it was polemic rubbish. I have disdain for waste and inappropriate govt intervention, just like many others. with the article published in another journal, I am doing my bit in academia to highlight the faults of govt.

But arguing for open borders or pure free trade is not the real world. The world changes for the better or worse from changing events, which forces societies and govts to adopt a policy mix that very much reflects the struggle for certain ideas and resources, including how they are dispersed

Chris,

allow me to come to your aid with a definition of "neoliberalism", or "extreme liberalism" I offered Peter the other day, at his urgent entreaty:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4393#111871

Peter hasn't responded so I had thought it fair to infer he concurred with me..
But now I see this..

Time permitting, I shall had a comment to this thread later.

Chris Lewis,

Very interesting summary of the 'state of play'.

"Whatever the outcomes, I am betting that any new policy trends that emerge will have more to do with pragmatic responses by government and society rather than any dreamland libertarian solution that adheres to pure free trade or open borders for immigrants."

So am I.

Economics isn't a science, so, neo-liberal policies are basically ideological positions that, by a strange coincidence, favour the owners of capital. Most of the successful East Asian economies have been produced by mercantilist,not neo-liberal policies.

Sooner or later the 'Lucky Country's' luck will run out, as Donald Horne predicted,if we follow the neo-liberal agenda our future would be more like Nauru's,an empty quarry.

You are not in position to “debate” anyone while the principles of logical thought continue to elude you and your entire argument consists of circularity and straw men, and, when challenged, personal disparagement.

You want to start your discussion from the proposition that the very idea of economic and personal freedom is stupid and unreasonable and preposterous, and then meet critical analysis proving your errors by circularly repeating your original method!

In other words, you’re not interested in liberalism. Fine. But perhaps it would be more honest if you only offered to debate with people who, like you, believe that the only issues are what number, kind and variety of restrictions on liberty there should be; and change the name of your article to “Miracles of Mercantilist Central Planning”?

mac
I have seen many people on OLO use the term "neo-liberalism" but no-one will dare to define it apparently. Perhaps you will.

The fact that *your* political opinion and intellectual method is based on ideology and has no basis in science does not justify your assumption that everyone else's is. You are only repeating the Marxian belief that there can be no such thing as economic science, that it is a mere cover for the interests of particular economic classes, that the interests of the participants in social co-operaton are irreconcilably in conflict, and that employment is intrinsically exploitative. But all this Marxian *ideology* was refuted as a matter of *science* long ago, so you need to correctly represent and refute the argument before re-running it all over again.

If what you are saying were correct, physical laws would have no logical consequence for human action. We could make up whatever economic reality we want, simply by passing laws.

It is this extremist fantasyland drivel that you and Chris Lewis espouse, and then have the gall to accuse others of ideology.

When you've refuted the following argument, you'll be in a position to start re-running that one: http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf

By all means, let us see your refutation of it.

And no, Chris, personal snivelling doesn't count.

alas, we will have to wait till tomorrow to see the next round in this exciting session of verbal tennis

love your game peter .. chris, oh chris, stiff upper lip mate

Libertarians may or may not be able to debate successfully that freedom is good for the economy.

As far as I am concerned, that doesn't matter. If freedom also brings about economic prosperity, then well and good, that would be a bonus, but not the determining factor.

The alternative to freedom is coercion and violence. That is simply unacceptable, even IF it brings about some "common good".

Ideally, no form of violence is right, but as a compromise we do commonly accept the right to use violence in self-defense. That is a pragmatic approach and that is where it should stop. While it is acceptable to say "It is OK to kill somebody who threatens me with a knife before they kill me", we should not compromise any further by saying for example "it is OK to take someone else's property/body-organs by force because I need it" or "it is OK to force someone do work for me because I really need that work done".

Just as we should limit our personal violence to self-defense (and blessed be they who are willing to do with no violence at all and turn the other cheek), so we must similarly limit the level of violence of our state, which is after all only there in order to represent us.

The state was formed as a self-defense pact, a mechanism that is used to protect us from both external and internal threats. Morally, that is the only mandate a state has, and that's where it should stay.

It is a pragmatic compromise already.

The fact that some people want to form a civilization or to make it a success, is not sacred enough to justify violence. "I want a more-advanced society" is not different in essence than "I want a bigger house" or "I want my neighbour's red-shining car".

Peter Hume,

I refer you to this definition--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

which is the consensus.

My statement that economics is 'not a science' has absolutely nothing to do with Marxist ideology ( where did you get that idea?) it's based on my acquaintance with economics at business school where it was obvious that some of the basic assumptions of economics were nothing more than philosophical speculation, many 'laws' in economics are simply ideology.

Fortunately there has been progress made recently towards placing economics on a scientific basis, sometimes by scientists not economists. Read the 'Bonus Myth' in the 9/4/11 issue of 'New Scientist'-- another cherished economic dogma has been undermined.

I recommend economist Prof Steve Keen's 'Debunking Economics' which was a pleasure to read as it confirmed my undergraduate scepticism of the subject.

Your straw man is in flames.

Peter; It's funny your characterisation of Marxism refuting the idea of genuine social (including economic) science;and your use of the term "Marxian ideology", when within the frames of reference of Marxism itself 'Ideology' are those ideas which obscure real interests in the process of legitimising the prevailing regime of economic and political power.

You say also Marxism has been refuted 'by science' (I assume you mean Austrian economics) also, but are not specific. The Marxist/Marxian tradition is a diverse one, though, encompassing theories of monopoly and of imperialism that remain relevant. The debate over the labour theory of value goes on also - and is a matter of interpretation. (eg: labour and nature as the source of value; value as purely subjective; value of nature regardless of the impact of labour etc)

Rejection of arguments about falling rates of profit take place in the context of Marxism's declining real-world influence - reinforcing the 'consensus' against its 'relevance'. But in reality falling rates of profit have been reversed due to: increases in the rate of exploitation, a falling labour share of the economy, the practice of neo-colonialism - and all this has remained 'palatable' in the advanced capitalist world because improvements in technology have seen material living standards rise regardless.

Nonetheless if you're a genuine libertarian I'd be interested in your view of Abbott and 'work for the dole' after 6 months. And if you oppose this, but also welfare - how you'd propose to deal with crime, homelessness,and massively increasing costs for the justice system. Not to mention the real-world human cost. But I'm getting ahead of myself - I'd be interested in your answer, though.

I also agree liberalism is a diverse tradition. There's economic liberalism, classical liberalism, social liberalism, political liberalism, neo-liberalism.

But unfortunately views outside the classical liberal/neo-liberal mold have been expulsed from the Liberal Party. Even the place of 'classical liberalism' in the Liberal party is in doubt with equivocations on personal liberty. (for instance: treatment of refugees) And real compassionate conservatism has been replaced by a shallow populism of scapegoating and 'divide and conquer'.

But responding to Chris on one issue - that of tax. I don't think international competition need drive us to extremes. In the US Company Tax hovers around 35% - Here in Australia it's 30% There's room to move.

Yes there are limits to the tax of capital; and there are downward pressures on corporate tax. Some - such as Ireland - took cuts in corporate tax to extremes. It didn't end up doing them any good.

And there are other factors like education and infrastructure. If there's a 'downward auction' on tax, and the consequence is inferior education and infrastructure - then we all lose. Public Private Partnerships have proved a less efficient alternative too - and open to abuse.

But given the gap between the US and Australia on Company Tax I think we have more room to move than many think. And there is scope for more progressive tax of labour, wealth, inheritences, dividends. Dividend Imputation alone costs over $20 billion a year; yet there are plenty of countries who do well without it.

Yuyutsu,

A more appropriate analogy would be, is it it EVER ok to comitt an act of violence. Ie. Would it be ok to kill one person if in doing so, you could save the entire planet and everythin on it?

This is an analogy for the age old debate on whether it is better to be right, or whether it is better to be good.

I don't think there's any question that the right thing is, that it is never ok to hurt someone else. However, depending upon how you see things, the good can sometimes be served by doing so. Ie, in your example above in terms of self defence. What about in my example, of a preemptive and collective 'self defence?

I can see that libertarian philsosophy is ,in its pure laboratory sense, right or moral for the individual. Where I am yet to be convinced is whether it will be for the common good. Or if that even matters? Of course there are also difficulties with defining the common good.

From what I have seen over the last forty years, and the recent remarks on this web, It is fairly obvious from the remarks of those fanatics of the liberal party, that their only vision is the destruction of the labor party, and the only vision of those of the labor party, is to destroy the liberal party, and I hope they both succeed, and maybe somebody intelligent will start a party with integrity and intelligence to step in and run the country intelligently, ensuring that our Australian manufacturing and farming industries have priority, and not destroyed with the export mining reciprocal imports of those cheap clothing and other goods that the stores are depending on so dearly. Sure we have fanatics who don't even know what is needed to obtain a good economy away from those recessions that both parties have driven our country into over the last thirty or so years, Paul Keating, John Howard, Peter Costello and Wayne Swan. If you are going to blame any of the guilty people, you have to blame all responsible without favour, except if you are a fanatic and corrupt of course. Do these parties promise to abide by the constitution they used to register with the electoral commission – no. Can they be trusted – no. Why can't they - after providing the commission with their constitution, obey it, and demand that all persons joining have to also honour and obey it so we know what they are doing, and so will they.

Australia's major political parties have "an unavoidable obligation" to hold the middle ground."??
Hold the middle ground indeed. The elites of this country specialise in distortion. There is no middle ground and there no is middle way. Here in this country we have a dictatorship - the only difference between the two major parties is style - and one of them is a decidely better manager of the public purse - and thats about it despite the Labor party hanging on to its socialist status - see preamble to Labor party constitution - yes it still says the Labor party is socialist. Well maybe it kind of is but then so are the Liberals.
The middle ground is a misnomer. The two major parties are soft leftist yes and socialist. Somewhere we got conned into thinking that is the middle ground. lt isnt. They like to say it is because 1 they think the middle ground is the place to be and can easily convince us that thats where they are and they think we like that and 2 its a good way to cover up the fact that they arent sitting there in the middle ground. Since when was the middle ground socialist?
For some reason we have been convinced that government has the right to take half our income - and reassign it or mismanage it or both. Governments are useless with money. They should not be allowed to divest us of any more than twenty per cent of our income irrespective of how much we earn and if that applied across the board the wealthy wouldnt need to spend 20 per cent of their income on accountants to protect the other eighty per cent - and then the system really would seem fair because right now the very rich pay nothing.
But l digress. We have been fooled into thinking the middle ground is a good thing and the major parties are sitting right there - in the middle ground. The middle ground isnt a good thing and they dont occupy the middle ground.

I couldn't agree more merv09.

The old right v left debate is boorish, inane, hypocritical, condescending and myopic.

The continued pedantry between them is excruciating to the point of alienation. Bogans barracking for their footy team.

Our political system has been refined to the point of "gaminess" which produces politicians who can best exploit the political game rules at the expense of providing vision and leadership.

The right likes to crap on about the decreasing number of union members who traditionally support labor while their own party membership numbers are not only shrinking but getting older.

Both sides only relevancy is that the political system offers no other real choice yet. The hung parliament says it all.

Hawke and Keating took Labor to the right where the Libs ran out of room and fell over the edge until Howard moved toward the cynical right. So the funny thing is Labor is no more left than Liberal. And what's even funnier is why Liberal call themselves liberal.

Ideology for the sake of it has no idea.

We get the politicians we deserve.

After all, we're the ones that vote for them. They don’t get a guernsey if we don’t give them a run in the first place.

If its really true, (and I’m arguing that it isn’t) that we don’t get the politicians we deserve, whats the excuse? Who’s making us choose elected officials we don’t want? Who’s standing in the polling booth on election day with you leading you astray?

Some will complain about lack of choice. But surely if there was a consensus on what we wanted, one of the political parties with their massive machines would have picked up on this and prosecuted a successful campaign. They haven’t. There is no consensus, except upon who is to blame. And its false.

To go on pretending it’s the politicians who are the problem is like telling the alcoholic that its the publican’s fault. But the publican's just selling what people want to buy. If he doesn't, he'll go broke. And the drinker will just walk on to the next bar. This analogy to public life is especially apt these days as all politicians manouevere for short term gain, afraid that any serious policy will send people down the road to the next guy. And they are RIGHT TO WORRY. IT ALMOST INEVITABLY DOES.

WHOSE FAULT IS THAT?

There's little doubt that the 24hour news cycle, combined with non-stop polling has, in part, led us here. Nevertheless, it is our consumption of such news that drives this whole cycle in the first place. This is the ongoing problem of a society lacking the patience to deal with complex issues and hell bent upon divesting any responsibility for it at every turn,. The simple and undeniable fact is that politicians do what they need to do to get elected. And who elects them? The people. It is OUR collective failure to hold the short/term populists (ie the non-conviction politicians) to account which is behind the politics we see today.

cont'

cont'

Politicians merely hold up a mirror to our society. And if people don't like what they see, they should do somethng about it. Not claim the mirror is cracked.To blame politicians and political parties for our own inadequacies is shortsighted and self defeating.

Merv, Glomley and others complain about the path the major political parties have taken. Yet they cannot escape the obvious fact that 50% of the people voted for the ruling parties.(even allowing for Gillards minority governement). By what other means do these people suggest we choose our representatives?

It is incumbent upon the citizen to take an active role in political life if they feel they are not being well represented. It is this failure to do so, along with endemic apathy among the voting public, which has led us here today.

Politicians introducing new policies today, face the uphill task of informing, educating and leading complex changes in public policy, in the face of a public with little engagmenent in the process and very little patience either. Sadly these conviction politicians will find that it is not the entrenched interests of the party system holding them back. There is plenty of ill feeling towards the short term, say anything, populist polticians out there. But coverting that into support for fundamental reform, from a public with ADD, is the 64million dollar challenge. Up till now, the public has almost universally rewarded the proponents of long term policy reforms, with consignment to the political dustbin. Not much of an incentive to go out on a limb, is it ...

Dear PaulL,

I am unable to even begin answering your questions without resorting to matters of spirit and religion, but that would imply that whatever I write here will be deemed irrelevant by most readers, who are brought up on a humanistic approach.

Ultimately, there is no good but God.

There is therefore no "common good" but doing God's will (which will, paradoxically, be done anyway!)

So if one who is fully attuned to God and acts on His behalf devoid of selfish motives, kills another for the common good, then in fact, such an act should not even count as violence. Obviously, however, we get into a deep mire here about how to tell whether or not someone is in fact in tune with God: there is no objective test or certainty about it, for only God sees to the heart!

Killing is not automatically an expression of violence, though most often it is, in which case it is termed "murder". While murder can sometimes be justified or excused (as on the grounds of self-defense), I cannot find a situation where it is actually good.

I would say that if one kills ONLY because of deep conviction that it is their personal duty, or even better, their calling from God, to do so; AND is able to retain their compassion and love towards the one(s) they kill even while they commit that act; AND is seeking no personal gain from doing so, then it likely is good.

Note that the exact same act, if done by someone else who does not fulfill all the above 3 conditions, would not be good.

mac
“My statement that economics is 'not a science' …[is] based on my acquaintance with economics at business school ….”

That’s fair enough but it only justifies the conclusion that the economics you were acquainted with is not science. It doesn’t justify the conclusion that economic science is impossible or non-existent. Please see my recent post in OLO Forum.

Accepting your cited definition of neo-liberal, it describes the neo-classical schools of economic descended from Adam Smith, and I agree with your and the left-wing criticism of them. They start with blatantly unrealistic assumptions, smuggle in value judgments under guise of “science” without justifying them, and make invalid use of mathematical, statistical and aggregative methods.

But that does not
1. prove that economic science is impossible or non-existent, nor that economic theory is nothing but ideology
2. establish a case against voluntary transactions
3. establish a case in favour of state interventions.

In particular, it does not dispose of the Austrian school of theory, which radically criticises state interventionism, at the same time as it rejects the methodology of science which the neo-classical school, the Marxists, and Steve Keen share in common, namely empirical positivism. The argument is that the empirical and positivist methods are invalid for studies of human action, which is subjectively motivated. *At best* they can only prove propositions of economic *history*, not *theory*.

However, sound and irrefutable scientific method is still capable of disproving the arguments of the socialists and statists in their own terms, proving that state interventions must produce results that are worse even from the standpoint of the interventionists.

The only refuge of its critics, such as Chris Lewis, Squeers and Tristan, is flight into the abnegation of reason itself.

As opposed to theory, all policy, as it is based on value judgments, can be called “ideology” if we want. But if one denies the possibility of economic science, then there is no objective way of knowing cause and effect, and therefore no reason for any particular ideology to be entrenched in policy, which supports the Austrian school conclusion anyway.

www.mises.org

Peter Hume,

Actually, now that you've restated your position and realise that I'm not arguing from a Marxist perspective( in fact, my knowledge of and interest in, marxist economics is negligible) I have to say I agree with some of the points you've made.
Because of the scepticism I mentioned earlier, my postgraduate education has been in economic history, so I'm not in a position to critique economic theories.

"But that does not
1. prove that economic science is impossible or non-existent, nor that economic theory is nothing but ideology
2. establish a case against voluntary transactions
3. establish a case in favour of state interventions."

Agreed, I don't have any reasons to doubt those propositions. I never disputed that an "economic science" is possible or that some areas of economics don't have an empirical basis. When I wrote-

"Economics isn't a science, so, neo-liberal policies are basically ideological positions that, by a strange coincidence, favour the owners of capital."

I was simply emphasising that economics, like all "social sciences", is vulnerable to ideological bias. "He who pays the piper selects the tune".

I now understand your position better however, I still agree with Chris Lewis.

Peter; It's funny your characterisation of Marxism … power.

Tristan
Why is that funny?

Firstly I don’t think there is any significant difference between the Labor and Liberal parties. I see them both as thoroughgoing socialists or statists - two wings of the one predatory class with a common interest in living at the expense of the productive class based on a double standard of confiscating the fruits of other people’s labour and giving it away to others as bribes for votes, in a fraudulent armed attack on voluntary and peaceable social co-operation.

Secondly I don’t accept the labour theory of value as it is flatly incorrect (and I have never seen anyone attempt to defend it except as you have just done, by appeal to absent authority). For that reason, I don’t accept that employment is intrinsically exploitative as socialists do on the basis of preferring theory they cannot defend to theory they cannot refute.

Since employment is voluntary, I recognise that it is not exploitative but mutually beneficial (unlike taxation). So far as employment is motivated by differences in wealth, that is not the fault of the capitalist, who more than anyone relieves the relative poverty of the worker by advancing present goods against future goods which may never be realised.

I recognise that it is meaningless or confused to talk of a shortage of any economic good except at a specified price. Able-bodied people need to work for a living at the market rate, like everyone else. Minimum wage laws force people into unemployment, else why not make it $1,000 an hour? The problems of chronic permanent unemployment are caused by government interventions, overwhelmingly socialist in provenance. Laws that force people to be unemployed and poorer, instead of voluntarily employed and richer, are abusive and should be abolished.

Similarly housing is no exception to economic goods in general. The problem of “homelessness” is politically created *by socialism*. There’s loads of land, materials, builders and willing consumers to solve the problem. They just need to stop being prevented by government’s meat-axe approach based overwhelmingly on “socialist” (anti-social) nonsense.

I do regret the title. I should have said Australia's liberal democracy: the rocky road ahead.

Tristan, yes there are some nations that do have different tax rates.

In Australia's case, given the structure of its economy and high reliance on investment, I believe that this makes it hard for our govts to go much higher, based on recent trends. That is probably why they went for a mining tax.

However, I would not be surprised if higher taxation rates are again introduced in the US in coming years, perhaps a consumption tax, which will raise aggregate levels.

Should this happen, then the trend the other way may begin throughout the Western world, although i doubt if rates return to pre-1980 levels.

Peter Hume,
I'd have thought that if economics sets itself up as a "science" it would be familiar with the second law of thermodynamics--closed systems and entropy and all that? Are you arguing for perpetual motion (in this case consumption?
Furthermore, since the "science" of human economics, what Smith, Marx et al more modestly called "political economy", is surely akin in its complexity to the "science" of climate change, how is it that you place so much faith in the former but not the latter, which is also supported by empirical science?
Further-furthermore, Marxists do not argue "that the empirical and positivist methods are invalid for studies of human action, which is subjectively motivated". Marxists acknowledge the value of empirical science but are sceptical of ideological influence--which even scientists are sceptical of! Empirical science works hand in glove with the prevailing order for Christ's sake!
Marx, if not all Marxists, following Hegel, did believe that a priori conceptions were also not merely valid, but vital to a holistic conception of the human world--not merely in the quest for "truth" (excuse me while I snigger), but in the quest for relevance and poignancy.
"The only refuge of its critics, such as Chris Lewis, Squeers and Tristan, is flight into the abnegation of reason itself".
I take no such flight; you talk as though "reason", divorced from a priori human judgement, was stable ground, ground from which "you" take flight.
"As opposed to theory, all policy, as it is based on value judgments, can be called “ideology” if we want. But if one denies the possibility of economic science, then there is no objective way of knowing cause and effect, and therefore no reason for any particular ideology to be entrenched in policy, which supports the Austrian school conclusion"

So who is the relativist now!
It is your neoliberal "policy" that's entrenched in "ideology"!

Peter, I have not yet seen a successful delivery of housing or its affordable cousin by the left or their 2nd cousins the public service.

I had hoped that key themes i identified, such as ongoing higher costs for food, utilities, and services, would have been the focus on debate.

I am concerned, and would have appreciated criticism, even from libertarians, about why my concerns are not warranted.

But instead, I get told I go around in circles and so on, and I am a fool for believing in the merit of democracy to elect and make accountable our politicians.

I have always been interested in issues, not theory. That is what I write about. I try to assess the strengths and weaknesses of all sides in terms of policy trends.

I am a liberal, in that I support its values, but I am a realist that also accepts that there are many reasons why certain individuals and nations do well and other do not. After nearly two decades of political study, I am certainly not going to throw my lot in with garbage that declares we should open up our borders completely to trade and immigration.

Sure, i bag the left at times, but I will never reject their sentiment. I also do not reject the observations made by marxists or neomarxists. In fact, I often get my info from such sources.

My perspective is shaped by many arguments made about issues, with little consideration given to theory.

I feel that is how life works, and that is how I try to think and write about issues.

Chris, maybe we can start on local competition.

Dallas, that is an excellent issue to start on, in fact i cannot think of any issue more important.

I am sort of stumped about how best to fix this one, as many are.

The US tried low interest rates, and gave licence for sub-prime loans; what a disaster. Some market economists have a point in noting the effect of artificially low interest rates, and the need for boom periods to be offset by busts, rather than large scale disasters.

I note that in the 1950s and 1960s, govts even considered importing houses.

Any ideas yourself about how best Aust can meet its housing needs?

I feel the best policy solution will be some king of public-private partnership, yet even this is not working in Australia.

Dallas, misread your past 2 posts.

I am talking about housing, not local competition. Sorry.

However, interested in your thoughts, and any other on this one.

Is that affordable shelter Chris ?

Chris,
It irks me that you summarily disparage theory, as if practice was remote from it, or theory was aloof from practice. If all you're interested in is micro-economic reform and you think that's practice, rather than subservience, I'll leave you to it. The "marriage" of theory and practice is surely more effective than divorce.

Lets play spot the nimby

Squeers

“Are you arguing for perpetual motion (... consumption?”

No. Unlike the neoliberals, I don’t argue in favour of growth as some kind of value in its own right.

“Marxists do not argue "that the empirical and positivist methods are invalid for studies of human action, which is subjectively motivated".

I know they don’t. I’m saying the Austrian school thinks empirical and positivist methods are invalid for studies of human action. The Marxists, in common with the neoclassicals and the neoliberals, think that economics is an empirical and positive science. The Austrians say it isn’t and can’t be. That’s one of the main reasons why the Austrian school is not neoliberal, even though it’s free-market – the methodology of the Marxists and the neoliberals has far more in common with each other, than either has with the Austrians.

“Furthermore, … how is it that you place so much faith in the former but not the latter, which is also supported by empirical science?”

1. My convictions, unlike the statists’, are as a result of reason not “faith”.
2. As to the science itself, I find the logical methodology of Austrian economics much more cogent than the climate orthodoxy’s methods of a) assuming what is in issue, b) trying to prove rather than disprove it, and c) using computer models (i.e. spreadsheets) – “garbage in, garbage out”.
3. Climate science provides no basis for value judgments in favour of policy – and neither does economics!

“Empirical science works hand in glove with the prevailing order for Christ's sake!”

Agreed. Austrian economics is not empirical science – please see my article in Forum.

“Marx, if not all Marxists, following Hegel, did believe that a priori conceptions were … valid … not merely in the quest for "truth" …. but in the quest for relevance and poignancy.”

How does that square with Marx’s view that the logical structure of mind is different with the members of various social classes?

“… you talk as though "reason", divorced from a priori human judgement, was stable ground”

No, I don’t think that. On the contrary.

“It is your neoliberal "policy" that's entrenched in "ideology"!

According to mac’s definition of neoliberal, which I accept, I am not a neoliberal.
Your own definition of neoliberal is not even a definition, nor even an attempt at honest representation, it’s just an ill-graced rant.

Chris
“I am a liberal, in that I support its values”

I know you think you are a liberal, but you don’t actually support the values of liberty at all. You constantly assume and declare *against* them. You recognize no *principle* by which the power of government should be limited, except by political expedience – the opposite of liberty. You constantly assume that freedom causes all sorts of social problems, and that the state has a magic power to fix them up, without ever proving your case against liberty, or in favour of the state. *Assuming* it doesn’t count.

You “don’t reject the observations” made by Marxists, and presumably therefore by Marx. And you haven’t the faintest idea of the complete and unanswerable demolition of Marx’s theories by the Austrian school. But it’s worse than that. You DON'T CARE, continue circulating errors refuted over a hundred years ago, and when your errors of are pointed out, you just re-circulate back, and repeat them again and again and again and again!

Why your concerns are not warranted.
Because they are based in garbled Marxism and Keynesianism, which was wrong before you got it at fifth hand from academe without thinking it through. Sorry, but it's idiotic to say “I’m only concerned with pragmatics not with theory”.

To *assume* that higher costs for food, utilities, and services come from free trade is to assume that governments magically make economic goods cheaper – i.e. use fewer resources to achieve a given end, and allocate resources to the most urgent and important wants, *as judged by the consumers of those services*.

These assumptions have no basis in reason or evidence. The only reason people think governments make anything cheaper is because governments don’t account for the payments they confiscate, and hide the cost/price difference in the general tax bill!

[Deleted for abuse.]

Chris Lewis,

Good article, questioning, examining forces at play and motivations of the players, and addressing difficulties presented by current economic and political conditions (locally and internationally).

First up, I too am a Liberal - and you and I know what we mean, so just ignore PH and his chain-pulling.

Your proposition as I see it is what is an effective way forward for Oz, and in particular for the Lib Coalition (though I'm reading in your underlying conviction in this latter regard, given that I think we may both share the view that current Labor is morally, ethically, politically and statistically bankrupt, without vision, and no longer adherent to a valid or reliable ideology - though maybe I'm being just a little harsh). I may be wrong in this assessment, but I will press on regardless. (I'll probably raise Tristan's hackles with that little outburst, but such is life.)

Two primary areas of concern: i) the political team, and ii) policies and vision - and the selling of that vision. Two main teams, with Greens and Independents playing interference. Middle ground (and moral ground) strenuously defended by all concerned. Senate hovering like you know what, waiting to hack into policy carcasses and pick over the bones. All very congested. How to make a telling break from the ruck? Or does one soft-peddle, do just enough to keep the boat on an even keel and avoid creating any bow-waves - until the whistle blows on full time (term)?

Only one way to go as I see it: Play the game hard, stick to your convictions, showing stern moral and ethical fibre and an honest concern for the spectators, show the other side up as weakling cheaters and objects to be derided and pitied (have some compassion, but not too much), and avoid any bogs or quicksands. Quality, and no prisoners.

"...I am betting that any new policy trends that emerge will have more to do with pragmatic responses ..."

I thought you rather soft-peddled, Chris. A touch non-committal.

Saltpetre,

Thanks for your comments.

Yes, I probably left my conclusion a little bit non-committal, but hope to build upon that in later opinion pieces