An article that is full of thought, and almost all of it fallacious, many times over.

Basically the author's argument boils down to the belief that by printing pieces of paper and stamping dollar signs on them, society can be made both more fair and more productive. It can't. Keynesian theory is wrong and indefensible. Government's pretensions to create wealth out of thin air by taking it from A and giving it to B are false.

"Government is the great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else."
Bastiat

And that fiction is all the author has for theoretical foundation.

Tony
An irrefutable disproof of your ethical argument can be found here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12955&page=0

Would you kindly read that thread, and then admit it irrefutably disproves your ethical argument?

However if you wish to maintain your argument, please show how you have avoided the fatal difficulties for it, comprised in the argumentation ethic discussed therein.

I will then offer to refute your economic arguments as follows.

There is a need to distinguish theory from history. History is capable only of contingent proofs. Theory is capable of categorical proofs or disproofs, for example Boyle’s law shows that there are certain knowable relations in physics and mechanics between temperature, pressure and volume.

For example, suppose a boiler explodes, killing some bystanders. The fact that one of the guys killed was called Fred, is a historical narrative only. We cannot say he was killed because he was called Fred; he could just as well have been called Sam and it would made no difference to causality. A historical explanation explains contingent facts; it does not show any necessary sequence or relation between cause and effect.

Theoretical explanations, on the other hand, provide universally valid propositions for the given conditions. For example we cannot say that the boiler exploded otherwise than in accordance with Boyle’s law. Why not? Because there’s no other possibility. Boyle’s law is a universally valid proposition for given conditions of temperature, pressure and volume.

Or rather, you *can* argue that Boyle’s law doesn’t apply, or that 2 + 2 = 564; but all it proves is that you’re wrong.

All the propositions of history and politics that you contend for, ultimately depend on propositions of economics. Some of these entail historical explanations. But others do not; they are capable of categorical logical disproofs. To deny this, is to deny the possibility of truth itself; if it were true, we could choose any material reality we want; would have discovered magic pudding.

I offer to irrefutably disprove your argument as to public goods. If you accept, please let me know.

It's just a set of views that I have held, Peter, not a set of facts. I'm not going to get into a to-and -fro debate with you because we both hold different opinions. You falsely believe that your opinions are synonymous with the truth and that this is a foregone certainty, hence there is no point in arguing with somebody who is not willing to transcend their own perspective in order to understand others in a productive manner.

I'd urge you to read the article again, Peter, for judging by your comments you have misinterpreted what i was trying to say, deciding to read your own interpretation into what i have written instead of attempting to understand what i was saying.

With regards to theories - i would urge you to read the Duhem-Quine thesis. Then you may learn that there is no such thing as a universally valid theory.

So you admit you cannot justify the policies you advocate

I don't need to justify them.

Every government job comes at the expense of three real jobs!

This is the central falacy of this author's argument... yes it would be great to have limitless money to pour into government jobs in health, welfare, psychology... every family should have their own private social worker and government advocate. The only problem is that this would destroy the economomy which produces the taxes to pay this army of government employees.

The Tea Party movement realises this.. they want less government. And they are right. Not only to save the economy, but also to save our families... because government funded feminism, welfare incentives, divorce incentives, parenting interventions are what are destroying our families and our children's futures. Get Government Big Brother out of our families and bedrooms and we will be better parents and etc.

Thoughtful piece Mr O'Brien. I'd have to concur with most of the sentiments, though I still think there's merit in many of the 'welfare-to-work' programs and the incentives that drive them - which would be at odds with some of your arguments.

To Peter Hume, I say, attend to the plank in thine own eye. The author has written an article. You've dismissed it as fallacious, yet you haven't chosen any specific point and described how it is fallacious.

Until you break it down into individual points and provide examples of why you disagree, your response is both hollow and somewhat rude.

Why not start with the comparison between Germany and the US, that was among the most specific and compelling.

Why is it that Germany's Gini coefficient isn't as high as the US's?
Why is it that Germany manages to provide more social services for its citizens?
Why is it that Germany's economy is performing much more strongly (in recent times) when compared to the US?

Given these points, how is it that you hold the US model of privatization as the superior model?

Do be specific, unlike your previous post.

Peter Hume:

...Well Peter, I must open my mouth on this subject. Over some extended period, I have quietly beavered away at your posts in order to make sense of a world you long for. Please correct me if I am wrong, (and I am sure you will), but your world order, it appears to me, lacks by default of nil tax collected by Government for redistribution to society, any ability to offer even a basic social service to its people. To save time, I could (but won’t), begin an endless list of functions of Government that would be missing in action in the absence of taxation receipts.

...But, one function I will list; war. If Governments are necessitated to fund wars by borrowings (since no tax income is available), then how do Governments repay the loans?
And how could you not agree that if taxation were equally and fairly sourced from individuals and corporations, as they should be under the current taxation regime (in America), but are not of course, since the individual cannot escape his obligation to pay taxation, as corporations and the wealthy, can and do; that this current taxation regime would invariably be more successful at redistribution for contingencies such as adequate social services, and when necessary, and the funding of wars necessitated under the banner of National Defence!

...I believe that this article highlights more the results of the unfair application of taxation, on the above standard, and not the factor of taxation alone.

...But one more point and I’ll leave it there. The point must be argued, the succession of wars since the close of WW2 which have occupied America, (concluding now, as we do, with the “war on terror”), have redirected resources from taxation funding away from social services in America with negative consequences which threaten the fabric of American society.

continued...

continued...

Peter Hume.

...I think we are already in the world you desire, where corporate profits, and the profits of the wealthy, are so protected by laws allowing taxation avoidance, that the burden of survival has been cast onto the shoulders of the average American, unable to partake of the same largesse: Where corporate America is the big winner in the theatre of war, and as such, stands accused of bludging on American “Joe”, by scooping the pool of taxation (war funding), and “shirking” on paying its fair share of taxation in return!

This whole article make quite alot of sense. One problem overlooked is the problem caused by the $US being the "reserve" and trading currency, a problem Keynes foresaw. Keynes proposed a currency for international trade in real goods and services based I understand on a weighted basket of the currencies of the main trading nations. It is a pity that the USA at Bretton Woods won out. Had it not we might not be in the current mess.

The pseudo capital slopping around in fibancial markets led to the GFC and the only way that problem will become is for all trade in real goods and services to be paid for using a basket of the currency of the main trading countries.

I use the term pseudo capital, because it is surplus to the spending needs of the owners, and to illustrate the difference between real capital assests and bank balances of money (money printed mainly so that the USA and other debtor nations can continue to consume real assets such as oil). All USA farms valued at 50-60 thousand dollars a hectare are worth about the same as Saudi Arabia's oil reserves at today's oil prices. When the oil is gone which assets will be worth having, the USA farms or the Saudi princes' bankbank balances?

Peter Hume has set himself up as knowing and understanding more about economics and capitaism than Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, John Start Mills and Paul Krugman, who only in Friday's New York Times took a very similar approach to that taken in this OLO article.

TurnLeftThenRight
“You… haven't chosen any specific point and described how it is fallacious.”

I choose both
a) the ethical premise – that forced redistributions makes society fairer; and irrefutably prove its fallaciousness by the argumentation ethic:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12955&page=0

b) and the economic premise – that forced redistributions makes society more physically productive; and irrefutably prove its fallaciousness by the economic calculation argument:
http://economics.org.au/2010/09/economic-calculation-in-the-socialist-commonwealth/
http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf
–

“Given these points, how is it that you hold the US model of privatization as the superior model?”

I don’t. I think it’s dreadful, real fascism – literally.

I don’t accept the frame of the argument. I don’t see freedom as being the cause of the problems Toby attributes to it. I see it as being the highest moral and political value. I don’t accept the underlying premise that the state creates net benefits for society by a bit of judicious looting here, handouts there, and bombing over there. Contrary to its own spin, it is an essentially anti-social institution and should be reduced by at least 80 percent. Voluntary social relations are ethically and pragmatically superior to coerced social relations. It is not true that government interventions make society fairer or more physically productive.

Underlying the idea that government provides necessary “social services” the lack of which threatens the social fabric, is the idea that society is essentially unworkable. It supposedly requires a massive framework of arbitrary coercion and forced cross-subsidies to political favourites to make it possible and fair. I don’t buy it. I reject that belief as irrational and unethical.

“Why is it that Germany's Gini coefficient isn't as high as the US's?’
It’s irrelevant. Why-ever it is, that doesn’t mean the ability of people to enjoy the good things that society produces is better realized via coerced redistributions, rather than voluntary i.e. market relations.

Even if the Gini coefficient is higher as a result of policy, that wouldn’t justify the policy.

Toby said: “With greater equality there came other benefits.” But he never established that equality was a benefit in its own right in the first place; he just assumed it.

(cont.)

The important thing is not equality per se, but rather that people be able to share in the good things that life has to offer and that society produces. The claim that this is better achieved through the forced redistributions of a compulsory territorial monopoly of coercion and fraud based on arbitrary political favouritism and counterfeited credit, rather than through voluntary social relations, has been *irrefutably disproved* because of the economic calculation argument: http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf

I don’t agree that equality per se is a value justifying coercion, for numerous reasons. Firstly, human equality is factually and conceptually impossible. That of itself proves it undesirable as a policy goal.

Secondly, it is people’s unequal evaluations of the same thing that makes possible the mutual advantage of social co-operation, a.k.a. society. If people were equal, no-one could obtain any benefit from associating with others: it would spell the end of human society. Equality is actually an anti-social ideal.

Thirdly, attempts to coercively realize full equality must require the abolition of all freedom. Fourthly, as that would require full public ownership of the means of production – socialism - it would be impossible in theory because of the economic calculation problem: http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf.

Fifthly, as the final state of full equality cannot be justified, neither can coerced movements towards it – ‘greater equality’. Seventhly, any attempts to move towards it by coercive means must necessarily entail social negative consequences greater than any social positive consequences, again because of the need to calculate to economise.

And finally all attempts to coercively realise equality entail an even greater inequality between the state and its subject than the inequality that was the original problem, and thus are self-contradictory and self-defeating.

“Why is it that Germany manages to provide more social services for its citizens?”
Perhaps because it confiscates more of their private property?

But such wealth redistribution by itself cannot prove that net social utility – or whatever you want to call the ultimate human welfare criterion – would be better or fairer with than without the thorough-going government interventions that characterize both Germany and America.

“Why is it that Germany's economy is performing much more strongly (in recent times) when compared to the US?”
Firstly not everyone wants economies to perform more strongly – just ask Poirot, Squeers or the greens. They want the economy to contract. If they don’t want economic growth, why should they be forced to pay for it? So government promoting economic growth can not be taken for granted as a desirable goal for all.

But one thing is certain – an economy performing strongly is *never* the result of taxation, inflation, regulations, or war. These are simply economic fallacies. Economic growth is always the result of savings, work and entrepreneurs’ successful prediction of the future. The only thing government can do to promote economic growth is leave people free.

Diverdan
Unconstitutional aggressive war is not a legitimate function of government, and neither are taxes to fund it. As you note, largely the state re-distributes wealth *upwards*. The injustice of this is an argument against funding services by forced redistributions, not in favour.

Most of government’s “social services” are just different forms of insurance originated by the market, not government, e.g. income and health insurance.

There is no such thing as a “right” to live at other people’s expense. Obviously not everyone can be equally entitled to do so. Some will live at the expense of others. This automatically sets up a class of net payers - the exploited – and net receivers – the exploiters. Therefore it creates not a “social service”, but an anti-social caste privilege.

The dole is only necessary because government criminalizes employing people at the market rate e.g. minimum wage laws; and prohibits employing marginal workers e.g. by tax, superannuation, compulsory licensing, compulsory insurances, etc. Government itself causes the original problem – systemic unemployment - that the dole is intended to solve. These laws are not “fair” – they force people into poverty. The fair and pragmatic remedy is to abolish both dysfunctional interventions. In a word: freedom.

“…an endless list of functions of Government that would be missing in action in the absence of taxation”…

All that list proves is that people wouldn’t voluntarily pay for them. So what? Why should they be forced to?

You need to prove that the payers for these services want them enough to pay for them – and if they do, then obviously taxation to fund them could be abolished, so you must lose the argument either way.

And you need to prove that it’s fair for the consumers to have them at others’ expense. To be fair, you need to take account of
a) any governmental cause of them needing the service in the first place. This would eliminate 80 percent of cases e.g. most of the old age pension – caused by government, during one’s working life, confiscating enormous income, savings and capital accumulation, criminalizing earning in a thousand ways - then in its victims’ impoverished old age, having the gall to appear as saviour.
b) any unequal double standard – exploiter/exploited problem – eg parenting pension – no fairness in some people having to forego children because too busy working and paying taxes so others can be paid to stay home and look after their own children without working – totally UNfair!
c) the costs of the bureaucracy (enormous – what charity might be funded with that?)
d) the perverse income redistributions of government’s management of the economy e.g. enrichment of big banks, high officials, corporations, military, at expense of the poor and ordinary workers
e) the social welfare foregone because of government’s permanent ongoing large-scale destruction of capital e.g. war, inflation, pink batts etc.,– (uncountable zillions).

Once we take into account the downsides, as well as the upsides of government intervention, which Toby did not do, I think we must conclude that the small remainder of needy would be better and should be provided for by the vastly increased social wealth of a free society.

Foyle, All
You guys can’t have it both ways: decrying the unfairness and corruption of the Keynesian landscape on the one hand, and on the other, blaming free markets and supporting more Keynesian interventions to fix the problem.

Peter Hume,

Heard of the term 'Gish Gallop'? Why do you try so hard to bury us in it? You can't win an argument by twisting and contorting everything to fit into your blinkered and contorted view of 'society', and of what it really means to be a responsible citizen.

The article puts forward a sound contrast between Germany and the US in terms of social services delivery - and the resultant German superiority in productivity, economy and social success are clear. Germany is the leading Euro economy, and this is not by chance, but by the planning and execution of effective government. The US, on the other hand has loosed the reins of government and handed extensive control of services delivery to private contractors, with the result that even their health-care system is a model of inequity, and is financially unavailable to a huge portion of the citizenry - which Obama has tried to redress, but with limited success because of the power of private interests, including those backing the Republicans.

Also, because of private contracting of virtually everything, except the troops themselves, the US defence machine, and the undertaking of warfare and of rebuilding social infrastructure in the likes of Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, is immensely expensive, and is extraordinarily inefficient and ineffective.

Because of its privatisation drive, and its lack of government regulation of banking, equities and commercial systems generally, the US caused the GFC, and is in threat of becoming a failed state - like Greece, Ireland and even France and other Euro sovereign nations - from foremost world economy, to basket case in three easy moves. This is definitely not a model to emulate.

Yet you try to argue that no government is better than effective government? That society would be better off if there were no social programs to offer all citizens reasonable opportunity? A glance around the world quickly demonstrates that it is only those nations which have effective government and effective social services (ie effective responsibility for the welfare of its citizens) that are successful. Try arguing with that.

Saltpetre stated the arguments against Peter Hume's Thatcherite "no such thing as society" type views very well.

PH did not comment on my view that the USA has created a vast pool bank balances that will prove ultimately worthless when fossil carbon resources are exhausted. He has also not commented on my contention that the USA has consumed large volumes of those reserves by simply creating part of those bank balances.

Another large part of those balances was created to allow goods producing countries to export their potential unemployment and to fund the USA military and economic objectives. Gambling utilising those bank balances was the underlying cause of the GFC. Of course, producers of goods and services need consumers, even including the disabled and disadvantaged to have purching money in their pockets otherwise manufacturing and sales become unprofitable and the result is the sort of whinging we have had lately from Gerry Harvey and his ilk.

Of course all those people who think that growth can continue forever have not yet realised that once fossil carbon is exhausted metal production form oxide or sulphide ores (iron, copper, aluminium etc) will no longer be possible as there will be no significant quantity of reducing agent available. Synthetic materials will also not be available as they are also based on fossil carbon.

The OECD countries were recently rated on well being. The top five were Iceland and Northern European countries, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland, all strong welfare system countries where social cohesion is considered desirable. Australia was 21st and the bottom five included USA, Greece, Mexico, Chile and Turkey. Illustrious company!

Foyle, Saltpetre

Imagine A and B having the following discussion:

A: “2 + 2 = 19.”

B: “No it doesn’t, and I can prove it, see.:
1 + 1 = 2, and
1 + 1 + 1+ 1 = 4
Therefore 2 + 2 = 4. It equals 4 and only 4. It doesn’t equal 19, and it can’t.”

A: “But I maintain that it does”.

Well that doesn’t mean, does it, that
• 2 + 2 = 19, or
• truth is relative, or
• there is no such thing as a universally valid proposition?

All it means is that A is logically incorrect.

You are faced with exactly the same problem. I say that my argument logically disproves yours, and have logically proved it; and you have not refuted my argument but only responded with more of the same illogic I have just disproved.

I have shown reason why forced redistributions – what you are wrongly and hypocritically calling “social programs” - cannot be ethically justified. Because to even enter into the discussion, you must concede the private property ethic, and thus perform a logical self-contradiction in arguing against it.

I have shown reason why forced redistributions cannot make society more physically productive. Because without economic calculation there is no rational way for government to know or calculate how to allocate resources to their most valued ends, as judged by the consumers. The result must *necessarily* be less productivity. Without disproving this, your assertion to the contrary is incompetent.

These entail complete logical and evidentiary disproof of your arguments. You give no sign of even understanding them. All you’ve done is keep banging away trying to insist that 2 + 2 = 19; to re-assert what I have just disproved.

Furthermore economic indexes do not and cannot prove what you are trying to prove with them. Because at best your line of reasoning could only amount to this:
“Countries which tend to have more of policy 1 also tend to have more of good thing A”

Therefore *at best* all you would have is the logical fallacy of ‘post hoc ergo propter hoc’ – ‘after that therefore because of that - or a correlation. The index does not and cannot prove that the good thing is *because of* a given policy. How do you know it’s not *despite* it? That’s what you’ve got to prove because that's what's in issue. So your methodology is fallacious because it doesn’t distinguish cause from effect.

Therefore my argument disproves yours but yours doesn’t disprove mine.

At least Toby openly admitted that he believes he is incapable of knowing whether a proposition is true or not. We should admire his honesty, while we pity his confusion.

But obviously if you can’t understand the logic of a simple syllogism, you are not qualified to competently use the astronomically longer chains of reasoning involved in economic indexes, with their myriad compound complexities, variables, historical and cultural contingencies, uncertainties and unknowns.

You guys are only proving that forced redistributions cannot be justified - my argument, not yours.

If am wrong – prove it.

It is not some kind of strange coincidence that the anti-freedom camp is also the anti-rational camp. This is because “might is right” is not an ethical justification, and you guys have no other justification for your forced redistributions than that. You can’t claim that truth is relative at the same time as you insist you have a right to order everyone else around. So you’re either confused or dishonest. Which is it?

Foyle
It is a misrepresentation to claim that I have a “there is no such thing as society” view. All I have done is defend the view that voluntary relations are better – and more social - than coerced ones, and you have not addressed my arguments at all.

“comment on my view that the USA has created a vast pool bank balances”

True.

“that will prove ultimately worthless when fossil carbon resources are exhausted.”

I think they’ll prove worthless long before that. So? What’s your point?

“the USA has consumed large volumes of those reserves by simply creating part of those bank balances.”

True.

Foyle, you do understand, don’t you, that the Federal Reserve is a creation of statute?
That it is the Fed that licences fractional reserve banking?
That lending credits unbacked by specie on deposit would be illegal in a free market, because it’s against the common law of fraud and contract?
That FRB is the economic cause of the relevant problems you discuss, including:
• The GFC
• The USA’s state of perpetual aggressive war
• The political favours to big corporations?

You seem to be confused, because you’re proving my point, not yours.


“Gambling utilising those bank balances was the underlying cause of the GFC.”
Correction: spending those bank balances is the cause of the GFC, and depressions generally. The cheap credit created by FRB cannot be spent without causing inflation and the bubble effect, and all the problems you discuss. These are caused by government, not unregulated markets.

Not even Keynes or Krugman ever claimed to be able to distinguish spending of FRB cheap credit that is not inflationary, from spending of it that is. Do you?

So – are you in favour of government manipulating the supply of money and credit so as to pay for social programs, or not? If not, you agree with me. If so, you contradict yourself.

Saltpetre
You’re contradicting yourself, evading my arguments, and running a whole pile of fallacies, ha ha. I suppose you’ve got to make do with what you’ve got, which is nothing. One day you could try intellectual honesty – you never know, you might like it.

Define “effective” government. How do you distinguish it from excessive government?
Define “reasonable opportunity”.
Is unprovoked aggression reasonable? If so, why? If not, why doesn’t that disprove your argument

Peter Hume,

"All I have done is defend the view that voluntary relations are better – and more social - than coerced ones.."

No, you haven't defended it, you haven't justified it, you have in fact only asserted it - hence, your own statement is fallacious. Also, of course, you are wrong - but of course that's beside the point as far as you're concerned. Never let truth get in the way of a broad misrepresentation, eh? And, your resultant idea of 'society' is nothing, no society at all, just a lot of loose interraction. Hence, Foyle is correct in his proposition that you have no concept of society, no interest in society, no need of society. You are an island. (And, you purposely misinterpreted and misused his Thatcher quote - nice going, you impress no-one.)

You are in a minority of one, and it is we who are all out of step.

Facts produce proof. If government provision of social services meets with approval from the populace then it is deemed as evident that it is effective, justified, justifiable, and worthwhile. Hence, Foyle's statement is effectively evidentiary:

"The OECD countries were recently rated on well being. The top five were Iceland and Northern European countries, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland, all strong welfare system countries where social cohesion is considered desirable. Australia was 21st and the bottom five included USA, Greece, Mexico, Chile and Turkey. Illustrious company!"

However, you say a tendancy does not constitute evidence. Forget it, you have your ideas and your interpretation, and never the twain shall meet. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more.

Put ten economists in the same room and you'll likely get thirty different opinions; meaning, economics is belief based theory driven postulations, rather than an exact science.
The Keynesian economic paradigm that finally rescued America from the economic malaise, we refer to as the Great depression, was followed by proof of the pudding a period of unprecedented prosperity; and indeed, when applied here, allowed Australia to remain a functioning and healthy economy!
Even as as other nations further erode their economic prospects with already tried and found very wanting austerity programs.
The simple and undeniable historical facts inform us; that you can save the economy and its underpinning civil structures or unearned undeserved privilege, but not both! Rhrosty.

Peter Hume =

# Unconstitutional aggressive war is not a legitimate function of government, and neither are taxes to fund it. As you note, largely the state re-distributes wealth *upwards*. The injustice of this is an argument against funding services by forced redistributions, not in favour #.

...But you fail to answer the question...Government funding of war! Allow me to update you PH, on this one. It would require a pretty emphatic argument, which could in any way, include America in today, as an inclusive incorporated Democracy: Irrespective of the claptrap and glamour of their electioneering, fact is, America is near the point of a pure Neo-Feudalist society. Democracy is dead in America. Why I harp on the issue of war reparations, is to prove the point that Democracy is dead. (By the way, I am getting around to your point of taxation)

...To sell the lie of Democracy, Democracy goes to war to sell its irrational logic of freedom to the enemy as a ruse: And who are the enemy? The enemy are those Nations in blatant opposition to the tenets of Democracy; it must be that way for the lie of Democracy to succeed. However, the “true value” (to use an economic term) of war is in the spoils available to the Feudal masters, the corporations, which mine the resources of the defeated Nations on the one hand, and as a secondary financial benefit, conduct the actual war with taxpayers funds, reaping huge profits for the corporate elites.

...The remaining American infrastructure, such as the public education system, along with other city and state institutions and administrations, are but the remaining façade of Democracy, and are in total decay. This is Feudal America. America is a country where the landed and wealthy are protected (and in most cases separated) from the dispossessed, by a privatised (Corporate) Police force, safely behind gated communities: Where the true rulers of the “fiefdom”, manipulate Governance behind the Democratic façade of Congress, writing their own cheques and formulating their own “wars for profit”.

Continued...

PH...Continued:

…The true story is of course much more complicated, but allow this to serve as the crude example, to save time.The real problem with America, Peter, is not taxation par-sae, but the lie that Democracy is. Into this void of truth, you may now enter! So your argument, in view of the “truth”, that America is in fact not a Democracy but actually a Neo-Feudal society, does hold some sway.

...If America could run as a “true and honest” Feudal society that it is, then taxation could be abandoned. So could a lot more of the “unnecessaries”, such as Politicians and Congress. That move alone would also show huge saving to Americans: But of course the lie of Democracy would quickly fall flat without them!

…But…what to do with the dispossessed and who will feed them? Well who should feed them, are the corporate leaders of fiefdom, and not the taxpayers of the “Paper Democracy”. So now Peter, when the truth is out, you are correct: So yes to your argument, no taxation, in the light of truth; since a whole new set of rules should apply to society, under the rule of Feudalism.

You guys can believe that we can create wealth by printing pieces of paper and stamping dollar signs on them.

But we can't.

And it doesn't matter if you circularly and ignorantly persist in believe we can. We still can't.

The deep structure of Saltpetre's argument is simply this:
Saltpetre: "Government provides certain services better."
I: "How do you know?"
Saltpetre: "Bastard! Anti-social! Loner! Lunatic! Because government provides certain services better."
I: "Prove it?"
S: "Okay. Assume government provides certain services better.... Now, from this, we can see that government provides certain services better."

That's it. That's his entire argument. He's using the logical standard of a donkey.

As for "the approval of the populace", all government's revenues are coerced, and there is no connection between paying for and receiving the service, so there is
a) no way for any payer to withhold the funds if he doesn't approve,
b) no way for the populace in voting to express their approval or disapproval of any particular service, and
c) no way for the government to calculate whether it is providing too much, too little, or just enough of a given service *in terms of the consumers' evaluations as against the alternative uses of the same resources*.

So you are completely failing to join issue, just talking through your arse - again!

Rhostry
..."economics is belief based theory driven postulations..."

Speak for yourself. Even if you were right, which you're not, there'd be no more reason to believe your conclusion than any other arbitrary belief based postulation, so you've proved nothing.

Besides, your method is fallacious. Just because something happened *after* something else, it doesn't mean it happened *because of* it, you fool.

You have also conveniently neglected to take account of the fact that, at all relevant times under discussion, the price and supply of money and credit was controlled by government so even according to your own theory, you're conclusion in favour of government is wrong.

All
The problems the statists have to answer are these.

How can you say that threatening to lock people in a cage in order to force them to hand over the fruits of their labour, is morally superior?

How do you know that any given government service satisified social values that were more urgent and important, than would have been satisfied if they hadn't taken the money in the first place? Prove it.

In approving the power of government to confiscate people's property in order to provide services, what makes you think that government is going to take the money from and give the money to, the people you think they should? There is NOTHING in the system requiring that or even making it probable. You're in favour of Keynesian policies, but Keynesian policies, by inflating the money supply, involve taking wealth from the poorest members of society, and redistributing it to the richest.

Is that what you had in mind? Because that's what you're supporting - on a massive scale, permanently. It's painful to behold the combination of your economic ignorance and moral conceitedness.

Embracing demonstrably illogical beliefs doesn't improve your moral superiority. It just means you're wrong.

Diverdan
You, and all my opponents in this thread, are failing to make the connection between the policies you support, and the resulting socio-economic landscape. It's not me who supports neo-feudalism, but you guys.

The fascism results from government attempts to manage the economy. Economically speaking, that's what fascism *is* by definition.

A classic example is Keynesian policies. The left wing support for these shows how completely confused they are.

Keynesianism works by inflating the money supply to pay for social programs. How do they do it? They do what would be illegal on a free market - fiat currency and fractional reserve banking. How does it work? It works by siphoning wealth out of the pockets of all the ordinary people in society (ie at the rate of inflation), and channelling it to the major banks which government has cartelised for the purpose, to enable them to inflate without limit. (This enables the government a) to get a cut of the loot and b) to finance perpetual war without being limited by taxation.) The big banks channel the money to the big corporations, which have also been cartelised by all the regulations which exclude competition because of the costs of complying with thousands of regulations. Meanwhile the kind of "social programs" the money is used to pay for, consist of forcing people into poverty by laws forbidding them to earn money (criminalising the human right of freedom of association) eg occupational licensing for "consumer protection", minimum wage for "industrial relations", forcing A to pay for B's children: "affirmative action", forcing A to pay for B's retirement income, and on and on and on.

YOU GUYS ARE IN FAVOUR OF THESE POLICIES, REMEMBER? BOTH HOW THEY ARE FUNDED, AND WHAT THE FUNDS ARE SPENT ON, REMEMBER?

That's what the article is defending, remember?

I'm the one arguing in favour of freedom in here, you're arguing against, remember?

You think that people don't have a right to be free to enter into contracts of their own making. You think the state threatening to imprison people to force them to pay up, represents a higher degree of sociality, remember? You're arguing there is no such thing as a fundamental right of people to own and control their life, liberty and property, free of interference from their political overlords, remember?

Here's the acid test. Google: "Hitler economic policies". Then tell me what policies you guys *disagree* with. It's all there: taxes on income, profits, capital gains, inheritance; controls on wages; compulsory worker insurances; compulsory funding motherhood schemes; compulsory state indoctrination of all children; occupational licensing; govt control of money and credit.

You're calling for MORE govt control, remember? I’m arguing against.

The reason you have produced a fascist neo-feudal society is because YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN FREEDOM, REMEMBER?

Perhaps instead of talking down to me on the basis that I don't know what I'm talking about, you should have the humility to consider the possibility that you are mistaken.

Perhaps you should consider that government control of anything and everything – democracy – gives everyone a right to plunder his neighbour’s property. The resulting scramble for mutual plunder, with the most powerful party doling out privileges for itself and its powerful friends is the RESULT OF THE POLICIES YOU ARE ADVOCATING!

To call for even more state control as a solution is culpable ignorance.

Perhaps you should consider whether a free society would not be better than the fruits of your redistributionism after all?

Interesting argument. Whilst it may be humiliating for some to have to prove how low they have got to avail themselves of money taken under threat of force from the income of others I don't see why that's a bigger issue than the taking of that money in the first place.

I suspect that both may be necessary evils. I do favor a safety net of some kind and don't see how that safety net can work without something like government involvement.

I've seen enough people whos values in other area's suggest that they'd shirk on pulling their weight if contributing was voluntary to be less than confident in the success of a voluntary system and also think that there is an element of payback, my ability to earn is in a lot of ways a product of what others have given before. Most of us have not originated something entirely new, nor paid for all that we have recieved along the way, especially knowledge.

What I don't think is necessary is for the government to use the threat of force to require me to subsidise gifts to others.

I should not have to pay for either of the solar system's (water and electricity) on my neighboors roof even if I could in turn try and make others pay for some on my roof.

I should not be forced to pay for a gift to others wishing to buy a first or brand new home.

I should not be forced to make a gift to others having a new baby.

I should not be forced to pay an income for those who won't make the choice to take on a job that's not to their liking (but do get that sometimes the cost of a job negates most of the income when child care, travel etc are accounted for).

Pragmatically I accept that forced taxation is probably necessary but doubt that I could argue that point entirely consistantly. I don't accept that governments use that assumed necessity responsibly nor with respect for those they take the money from.

R0bert

You can print money, [quantitative easing,] you can print derivites, you can print bearer bonds, you can print cashiers cheques or create a company with the issue of shares etc/etc/etc.
It's all the same thing, relatively worthless paper or wealth created out of thin air or debt!
Only as good as the government, and the sustainable policy paradigm; or, the bank or business corporation that backs it/them!
I don't know if any of the other posters have ever heard of the whoslem bird of legend?
It apparently flew in ever decreasing circles until it disappeared forever down its own fundamental orifice!
And that's where this argument is heading; or indeed, those limited to conventional thinking, within a very fixed extremely rigid circle of extremely limited ideas.
A precursor to and the cause of the Great depression; and the more recent and ongoing GFC, was more and more of our finite wealth concentrating in fewer and fewer hands!
Clearly we need to redistribute some of this hoarded wealth, on the grounds that money only works to create the combined wealth; that backs it, by passing through as many hands as possible; creating and building backing assets, every step of the way!
The answer here is to eliminate both the waste and the internal parasites; that prevent or place bottlenecks in the circulation and peculation of money through in and around our domestic economy.
We need to de bureaucratize Govt, with past practise successful voluntary unpaid regional boards.
We need to vastly simplify the tax act; and replace all that convoluted mind numbing complexity, with a single, stand alone, entirely unavoidable expenditure tax; meaning, business and the wealthy may actually pay more actual tax; but, gain a net improvement of their positions, by virtue of the fact; they will no longer be burdened with often onerous compliance costs; and indeed, the current raft of taxes; that the suggested reform, would entirely replace!
But, garner it from a very much broader base; and indeed, those who currently successfully in whole or in part; avoid their fair share of a combined responsibility/liability.

@ PETER HUME

"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Albert Einstein

'Think it's high time you revised your perceived need to try and convince other people of your convinced sense of self-righteousness & intellectual preeminence and do something more interesting -exercise your imagination - don't ya think, Pete?

Continued...@PETER HUME

Clearly, you are an intellectual pedestrian.

Hi, I've had my attention drawn to some posts. There appears to be a level of abuse creeping in. Calling someone a "fool" is abusive from where I stand, but I'm not sure that calling someone intellectually pedestrian isn't going to raise the temperature to the stage where I need to intervene either.

The forum rule is that you address arguments not personalities. The only way a personality legitimately becomes a matter for debate on the forum is where someone is unwise enough to put their claimed expertise in evidence as proof.

IMHO. Government's responsibility is to do what is in the best interests of the nation as a whole.

Where there is no elected government (or ineffective government) militias, military, or insurgents from another country will fill the void. A nation will be ruled, either by choice or by force. I see no alternative for any progressive society. No government means no rule of law, but rather tribal law or despot law.

Governments of various persuasion place varying emphasis on social services, public utilities and infrastructure, etc, as well as on commerce and defence forces. If a government undertakes its responsibilities well, it will have general support, and will thus avoid popular revolt, election defeat, or coup detat, depending on the advancement or otherwise of the country's political system and constitution.

In a democracy, the people will try to elect representatives with whose (and whose party's) policies and ideas they agree. Did we all want a carbon tax? Who knows. But our government decided it was in the best interests of the world, and therefore, by association, for the nation. The next election will evidence the strength of support or otherwise for that initiative, and others - such as maternity leave, MRRT, NBN, baby bonus, childcare and family allowances, etc. The people have a say. In totalitarian and communist regimes the people have little if any say. I know which system I prefer.

Is there a viable superior alternative to democracy? I don't think so. Is democratic government perfect all the time for all the people? Obviously not - but it still appears to be the best available option.

Does effective government require taxation to be able to perform its governance role? Yes. Who should pay tax? All who earn more than is essential for a modest lifestyle for themself and family. Should taxation be excessively onerous on anyone? No.

Should people who can't earn a living be made to feel like parasites or second-class citizens? NO. Should government act to maintain an acceptable balance between capital and populace? Yes. Has the US erred in these latter respects? It appears so.

"All who earn more than is essential for a modest lifestyle for themself and family"

Why should a choice not to earn more than a "modest lifestyle" exempt someone from their share of financial responsibility to society?

Why should a choice to try and earn more than a "modest lifestyle" increase someones financial responsibility to society?

There are those who genuinely can't can't earn a living through disability or legitimate responsibilities for the care of others and it appears sometimes because many employers won't take on the over 50's.

There are also many who can't earn a living because of choices they make, an ongoing choice to abuse their body with harmful substances being one that springs to mind and sometimes just an unwillingness to work.

I feel some responsibility for those who genuinely can't earn a living because of circumstances beyond their control, none for the those who can't earn a living because of their own ongoing choices.

R0bert

R0bert,

To your first question: I think the answer is 'fairness'. That those with a greater capacity to pay should be obliged to do so. (Of course, if the system was totally fair, contributions to the 'community purse' would be based on total assets rather than fiscal year earnings alone - and maybe that is where the world will have to head to achieve a real semblance of equity.)

As for lifestyle choice: We relish freedom, and hold compassion and empathy in high esteeem, but all able-bodied should have a responsibility to contribute productively in some measure. Most have something to contribute, given the chance to 'belong'.

The overall answer is 'community'. We may help a neighbour with a problem, and would hope for the same from others. However, the definition of neighbour, and of community, is flexible, and culture and society (also rather flexible) act to determine our sense of responsibility for the wellbeing of others in our midst.

In our progressive civilisation (or our small part of it) compassion for others extends to social programs, healthcare, public services and rehabilitation - the common good, sovereignty, security and quality of life. Such 'gifts' are not always well appreciated, such is the 'human' condition. Similarly, the sacrifice by some for the common good is not always well appreciated, sometimes abused, and often overlooked or misjudged.

In our increasingly artificial and aloof society, we have lost a large measure of the cooperative bond essential for group survival, but we long for that bond nonetheless, for that is humanity.

Saltpetre, my point's were about choice and in my view the issue of fairness cut's the other way when it comes to choice.

It's not fair that those who choose to work harder have extra money taken from their income than those who make choices which are more recreationally focussed.

If total assets were the measure why is it fair to take more from those who've saved than from those who've spent the difference on consumable luxuries along the way?

I'm of the view that what we should tax is time. Not perfect but a fairer system than taxing income.

Make each adult who is capable of doing so responsible for contributing a portion of their time to the common good. For those on a wage that becomes a fixed number of hours of their average hourly pay rate, for those not working or doing minimal hours it is in time on community projects.

For self employed and investment income it get's more difficult but it should be possible to put some workable estimations in place, eg use the average working week to calculate the hourly rate on investment income.

The idea that someone who decides to work extra hours to get some extra income should somehow become more responsible to society than someone who makes different choices has no fairness about it.

R0bert

R0bert,

I guess the choice is between working for a reasonable living and quality of life; or living a meagre existence on welfare, with little chance of improvement.

Should we dispense with welfare? I don't see how we can. Could welfare and its conditions be made tougher, so that those able would be more likely to work for a living? Probably. However, much of the welfare system is politically based, and geared to vote-catching - with bi-partisan agreement being possibly the only way to scale-back or eliminate 'rorts' or excesses.

Whereas I feel sickness, disablility and assets-tested aged-care benefits are fully justified, I fear a range of family and child-care benefits may be excessive or unwarranted - placing an unnecessary strain on the public purse and therefore on those who contribute to it.

It is a fine balancing act of caring for the needy (as a matter of national pride and prestige, as well as of humanitarian compassion) whilst also promoting the industrious and enterprising (as a matter of economic probity).

It would be great if everybody worked together to build their own and the nation's economic and social wealth and security - but to some extent our welfare system mitigates against all pulling their full weight.

You are right that assets-based taxation would unfairly penalise those who save and build (and I absolutely hate the idea of death-duties). Don't know what I could have been thinking. The same problem would apply to higher business taxes, particularly for the self-employed and sole trader. In the end result, full employment and limited welfare appears the best solution.

As for tax, maybe the fairest way is a low flat rate across the board, only scaling up for those earning over $150,000?

Saltpetre, very much in agreement with that last post.

I'm not so opposed to death duties in principle but have not thought about it enough to have strong views either way.

The idea that some start out with billions passed onto them tax free while those working difficult and dangerous jobs are taxed on what they earn does not sit well. The idea that people loose the family home or a small business that they've been a part of creating or building up because one party dies and the impost of death duties makes it impossible to keep the asset is the other side of it.

R0bert

Thanks RObert, we seem to be pretty much on the same page, so we might just put it to bed now.

You're right about death duties being a bit of a thorny issue though, with some circumstances possibly pro, and others definitely anti. Best left alone, I think; and one can always hope for a better way to resolve some of the wider inequity between the haves and have-nots in this mixed-up world of ours. (But, leaving it up to government may not be the best way.)

Maybe one day people won't even have to worry about money - with reward being based purely on effort and contribution to the greater good. Could be visions of an idealistic world, but of course some will only see this as socialism or communism - which of course is nothing like what I have in mind. Just possibilities. (Social Democracy?)

Cheers, and Happy New Year.

Happy new year to all, including Peter Hume :-)

Apologies if I contributed to things getting a bit (over) heated, t'was all just in the spirit of debate :-)