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.