"The pricing of carbon and the imposition of a resource rental tax have long been advocated in economics as mechanisms of protecting the national interest, both from excessive environmental degradation and from excessive extraction of monopolistic rents."

Now explain what an atmospheric increase of two parts per ten thousand in a colourless, odourless gas which helps plants grow has to do with 'environmental degradation' -- excessive or otherwise.

And then you can explain how the 'carbon tax' is going to stop it.

Bravo Jon J. The nerve of an advocate of the modern selling of indulgences, preaching against irrationality!

* * *

The fundamental irrationality of the author’s argument is that efficiency, fairness and protection of the national interest cannot be better known, decided or enacted by government, and it is irrational to claim that they can.

For example, the author is not “the nation” and therefore he cannot say what the national interest is, any better than the individuals whose voluntary preferences he wants to forcibly override with whatever policy he advocates.

Similarly, since the author doesn’t know what other people are thinking, especially as he is talking about millions of people, there is no way for him to have the knowledge necessary to propose a more efficient solution to what they are trying to achieve by their voluntary actions.

http://economics.org.au/2011/08/government-is-criminal-part-3-subjective-individualism/

And it will of course be vain to say that this or that tax is more fair, while ever the author is incapable of saying what would make *any* tax fair in the first place: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard149.html

All red herrings aside, I agree with the core of the article. We can get distracted by carbon taxes, whistleblower legislation, higher education funding and other issues all we like, but they are just examples - appendages to the point rather than the point itself.

The gist of the article, as I understand it, is that proposals that are scrutinised and found to be worthwhile are often pushed to the side and left to decay in the mound of 'what could have been'. The reason for this, it is contended, is that the relevant information (signal) is lost in a sea of irrelevant information (noise).

I suspect the same could apply in the other direction: a poor proposal could be assessed and deemed to be unworthy, but pushed ahead once the signal is diluted by the noise. Thus decisions are made not because they are supported by evidence, but because the evidence is obscured by superfluous information. Sometimes it works out, other times it doesn't.

I'm sure the author believes that each of his proposals is worthwhile, evidence-based and in the 'national interest'. I don't know enough about them to have an opinion either way. The article could have benefited from the use of fewer personal examples and a wider range of examples from which the author can distance himself. It does look suspiciously like he is 'pushing a barrow' here; however, digging beneath that, there is certainly merit to what he says. It is, to me, a refreshingly different look at the stagnation and inactivity of government here in Australia.