"To people who support the Greens. Become more alert to the “downstream” effects of Green policies."

A classic example is in the Monaro district, where I come from. The biggest single factor destroying native vegetation is the Native Vegetation Act. This is because it prevents the necessary management of African lovegrass which is an invasive aggressive weed that's taking over native grasslands big time. The costs of getting rid of this weed are greater than the value of the land. Yet government is main vector of the spread of this weed - it was spread as part of the government's "management of natural resources" by the soil conservation service. The only way it can be controlled is by cultivation which is illegal under the Native Vegetation Act because it would wound Gaia's precious native vegetation - mile upon mile of Poa tussock with the feed value of cardboard.

Yet the Act just assumes that government automatically knows better how to manage "natural resources" for "sustainability" so the factual premise of the whole Act is obviously wrong.

And what makes anyone think such a problem is confined to the Monaro? Why would it be?

The supporters of the Act just assumed that it automatically and necessarily promotes native vegetation. It never occurred to the greens that the legislature might not be infallible, and that their might be unintended consequences to their dream of total control of everyone and everything through coercive central planning.

The author seems to be hankering for his own version of nirvana. He appears to forget that the major corporations that control most business activities in the private sector are artificial constructs, constructs only made possible by the laws of the State.

The major role of a strong government in a sovereign currency area has been clearly defined by in two recent presentations. The first was at the London School of Economics by Professor Mariana Mazzucato, of the University of Sussex, and her views are summed in her recent book "The Entrepreneurial State". The professor highlights, among other things, just how much of the technology of USA produced or controlled electronic gadget market, and leading medical developments, have been either the result of research undertaken by US Government owned facilities or funded, in other research facilities, by that Federal Government or its military or space agencies.

The second presentation was by professors Wray and Kelton from the University of Missouri, Kansas City. The slides form Kelton's talk are readily available at the neweconomicperspectives blog and show, in the introduction, the theory underlying neo-liberalism and libertarianism and how it is is flawed. Kelton shows in which areas of the fiscal space available, to a sovereign government, the economy can be sustainable.

The Sovereign Government has to oversee the economy to at least the extent necessary to overcome the wild fluctuations between enthusiasm and despair in corporations that are largely led by people who have little understanding of the likely outcomes of their combined actions.

Some idea of the deleterious effects of businesses' combined activities is available in the book titled,"Taking the Risk Out of Democracy" which combined some articles by the late Alex Carey. And, they are allowed their expenses in these activities as tax deductions.

"The author seems to be hankering for his own version of nirvana."

No reason is given for this gratuitous ad hominem. The author explicitly disclaims utopia.

"He appears to forget that the major corporations ... are artificial constructs ... only made possible by the laws of the State."

a) So what? He hasn't argued against the State or corporations.
b) corporations could achieve limited liability by contract, so your argument is a) untrue, and b) circular
c) You appear to forget that what controls most business activities is the directions of 7 billion people by their voluntary actions in buying and selling. You don't give any reason why a monopoly of aggressive violence would be presumptively better at allocating resources to their most valued ends.

"The professor highlights, among other things, just how much ... have been either the result of research undertaken by US Government owned facilities or funded, in other research facilities, by that Federal Government or its military or space agencies."

So what? That doesn't mean that:
a) the government has any presumptive superiority at producing these things
b) it even does them passably well
c) better might not have been produced with the same resources raised and deployed voluntarily.

If your assumption is correct, that government creates net benefits by such activities, then why not socialise all means of production?

Answer?

"...neo-liberalism and libertarianism and how it is is flawed."

Nothing that you have said has come near to beginning to establish that assertion.

"The Sovereign Government has to oversee the economy ... to overcome the wild fluctuations between enthusiasm and despair in corporations that are largely led by people who have little understanding of the likely outcomes of their combined actions."

This
a) doesn't explain why the sovereign government is immune from these same human follies or vices. It isn't. And
b) ignores the role of the government in causing economic depressions through its inflationay manipulation of the money supply.

That's a fail, Foyle. But thanks for demonstrating how socialism gets its only support in confusion, ignorance, and fallacies.

The kind of "classical" liberalism that Rafe promotes is the philosophy and politics of one-dimensional man or the slick-and-clever-mind that misinforms our entire "culture". http://www.beezone.com/dailyreading/slick_clever_mind.html
It is the philosophy and culture formed in the image of scientism or classical 19th century Newtonian science.
The same is true of socialism and communism.

In his famous 1922 poem The Waste Land T S Eliot described the cultural devastation caused by World War I. World War II finished off that process of devastation or the destruction of civilization. Nothing of any consequence has occurred or appeared since then to make any real difference to what Eliot described.

Although the techo-culture of the past 60 years or so has produced significant benefits for a significant percentage of the human population, on its own the philosophy & culture promoted by Rafe and his "libertarian" friends has inevitably lead to the exploitation, degradation, suppression, and the now-in-the-pipeline destruction of both the individual and humankind altogether - and the eco-sphere too.

These two essays describe the limitations and liabilities of the philosophy and "culture" that Rafe advocates:
http://www.dabase.org/p7unity.htm
http://www.dabase.org/p8realpolitik.htm
As indeed does the entire contents of this website:
http://www.beezone.com/news.html

Elswhere the author of the above essay describes the situation wrought by the poltics & "culture" of "libertarianism".
"Indeed, a society or any loose collective of mere individuals does not need, and cannot even tolerate, a true culture - because a true culture must, necessarily, be characterized in its best demonstrations and aspirations, by mutual tolarance, cooperation, peace, and profundity.
Therefore, socities based on competitive individualism, and egoic self-fulfillment, and merely gross or (slick-and-clever) supergficial mindedness actually destroy truly humanizing culture (and all, until then, existing cultures, and cultural adaptations.
And true cultures and true cultural adaptations are produced and needed ONLY when individuals rightly and truly participate in a collective, and, thus and thereby live in accorance with the Life-Principle of ego-transcendence AND the Great Principle of Oneness, or Unity."

This reference describes what our freedom has been reduced too by the relentless corporate propaganda channeled into our "living"-rooms by TV.
http://www.coteda.com/fundamentals/index.html
TV "culture" rules OK!

'To the intellectuals of the left. For the sake of a better quality of public debate it will help to be more inclusive in the forums and conferences of academics and commentators. The public are entitled to have exposure to a wider spectrum of ideas than they usually obtain in the publicly funded venues of academic conferences, writers festivals, idea summits and the ABC. It sometimes seems that the intellectuals of the left are struggling in the battle of ideas and the appropriate response may be to meet and find common ground with classical liberals and explore differences of opinion from that point, rather than adopting a confrontational and exclusive stance from the start'.

Yes I agree with this.

There is no longer any real debate.
There never was.
Any "debates" were essentially hot air exercises whilst the right-wing think tanks were systemtically growing their power - following on from the highly successful USA model perfected by the Republican Noise Machine.
How many voices of a left/liberal/progressive persuasion will be listened to by the new "there is no other way" "conservative" government.
Following on from Alasdair MacIntyre the barbarians are now fully ensconsed within the gates of the polis.
All contrary voices to the now dominant IPA/CIS right-wing think tanks line that informs the new governments political and cultural agendas have been quickly marginalized, and will remain so.
The IPA would even purge the ABC of left/liberal/progressive voices if it could - such is on its wish-list demands for the new government.

As David Korten and others have pointed out corporations now rule the world.

Daffy Duck "left/liberal/progressive voices"

Qué?

There's half the problem, right there.
"Liberal" has been lumped in with the very things it is not: left (preachy collectivists) and progressive (pushy utopians).

The article does not clearly define "classical" liberalism and seems to confuse it with libertarianism (which you could call "extremist liberalism").

Liberalism works *within* a society and its economy.

It doesn't necessarily work *between* them (globalisation, multiculturalism) because there is *no* genuinely universal/global society/economy.

Societies and their economies only really exist locally/domestically/nationally.

Their cultures are domestically specific, their economies are taxed domestically for domestic public services.

A revival of "liberalism" that simply regurgitates the utopian/idealist "global" stance of recent politics will alienate a lot of people, myself included.

We can be liberals *and* nationalists, you know.

Shockadelic

"Societies and their economies only really exist locally/domestically/nationally."

Aren't you confusing societies with states?

Australian *society* is international. For example look at all the goods that we get from China, and the food, clothing, technology and ideas from all over the world. The people entering Australia every day, and leaving.

It's the *State* that exists "nationally". By its very existence it represents an attempt to restrict the flow of people, labour, capital etc. to within its defined national territory on terms that it dictates backed by force.

Human society is indeed international, and if international trade were cut off so as to achieve the dreams of the national socialists, and the green utopians, the result would be the deaths by starvation of thousands of millions of people.

Classic liberalism is only compatible with nationalism to a limited extent (government being a national monopoly of security services) but it is certainly not in favour of trade protectionism on a national basis. On the contrary, it is precisely the argument over free trade/protectionism that gave rise to the classical liberals in England (movement to repeal of the Corn Laws and all that).

Jardine, liberalism and democracy have contradictory impulses, yet you wouldn't refute that we can be both simultaneously.
We just need to "compromise" sometimes.

I am not a purist, slavishly following ideology.

You can have social and economic liberty *within* a society, without it existing outside it, or extrapolating to global proportions.
(If the rest of the world was communist, Australia could still be *internally* liberal).

There's no universal "society".
There are only specific societies (French, Turkish, Bengali) that may or may not choose to interact (*Not* interacting is also part of "liberty").

"look at all the goods that we get from China"
And the void from elsewhere.

China dominates both trade and immigration.
Can you truly have a "global society" when *one* people/regional society overshadows all others?

No I'm not confusing state and society.
But they do roughly correspond in most cases. That's how states came into being.
French society existed before "France".

If you support "democracy", international interaction (trade, immigration) should only occur with the consent of "the people".
Which is not the case.

All our international interactions, whether we want them or not, are choices made by politicians, who often deceive the public about their intentions or contradict the known public sentiment.

"if international trade were cut off so as to achieve the dreams of the national socialists and the green utopians"

I don't want either to achieve their dreams.

I would never propose "cutting off" trade.
Such a sudden shock would *hurt* the domestic economy.
But we could gradually phase it out.
Without plentiful oil, we may have to, as shipping will stop.

"government being a national monopoly of security services"

It's you that's confusing the state and society.
The "nation/society" is the people, not the government.

"the classical liberals in England" lived in a time where most trade occurred within their own empire, or with adjacent continental countries.

They would never have envisioned people and goods from the *entire planet* moving "freely" about.

I'm sure they would have seen the dangers such chaos creates for the "civil society" needed for a liberal democratic system to work.

“There's no universal "society".”

Why not? What is society but human co-operation by a different name?

“There are only specific societies (French, Turkish, Bengali)”

Why? Why aren't the people in those state boundaries also in society with people outside them"

> "look at all the goods that we get from China"
"And the void from elsewhere."

There isn’t a void from elsewhere. We get goods and from from, and send goods and services to, all over the world.

China dominates both trade and immigration.
Can you truly have a "global society" when *one* people/regional society overshadows all others?”

Why not? Why can’t people co-operate with other people, by voluntary exchanges, regardless what states claim the right to make laws over them?

“If you support "democracy", international interaction (trade, immigration) should only occur with the consent of "the people".
Why should the deciding factor be political power, rather than the freedom of the people to enter into voluntary transactions?

“All our international interactions, whether we want them or not, are choices made by politicians”

No they’re not. When you buy and sell goods and services, that’s not “choices made by politicians”

"…politicians , who often deceive the public about their intentions or contradict the known public sentiment."

It’s true they do. So why should politicians be the deciders? Why not the people by their own voluntary transactions?

“I would never propose "cutting off" trade.
…But we could gradually phase it out.”

Why would you want to phase out trade?

Jardine "Why aren't the people in those state boundaries also in society with people outside them"

A few individuals interacting globally doesn't create a genuine "society".
A "society" is a large *group* that share persistent connections.

What are the persistent connections between Muslim Turks, agnostic New Yorkers and Irish wiccans?
Does such a "group" on a large scale even exist?

There are over 6000 different ethnic groups (the principal basis of "societies") in the world. What could possibly connect all of them?

"There isn’t a void from elsewhere."

Imports are disproportionately Chinese.
Try finding anything at Kmart *not* made in China.

Try finding anything, anywhere made in Brazil, made in Turkey, made in South Africa, made in Russia. Where are they?

"When you buy and sell goods and services, that’s not “choices made by politicians”"

Yes, it is. Because they decide what can be bought or sold.
They can prohibit goods (heroin) or goods to or from certain countries (North Korea).
They can stipulate production specifications (size, weight, etc).
Politicians also sign "free trade" agreements without our consent.

"So why should politicians be the deciders? Why not the people by their own voluntary transactions?"

Why not the people through "democracy"?
We are supposed to be both liberal *and* democratic.
You seem to value only the former.

"Why would you want to phase out trade?"

Have a look at the economic turmoil of recent years.
The more interlinked we are, the more we're affected by disastrous externalities.

"Free trade" sounds great if you're Switzerland, where trading with a dozen other countries involves a trip of a few kilometres.

Look at Australia on Google Earth.
We're virtually alone, with most other countries on the other side of the planet!

This means international trade is dependent on shipping, reliant on cheap oil and good weather.
An economy dependent on such favourable conditions continuing indefinitely is a very vulnerable economy.

Foreign political stability is also a factor.
Middle Eastern or Central American conflict could close the Suez or Panama Canals.
China may disintegrate one day.
The more we can produce domestically, the better.

>>"Why would you want to phase out trade?"

>Have a look at the economic turmoil of recent years.
The more interlinked we are, the more we're affected by disastrous externalities.

Then why not phase out all trade? Think how free of the possibility of economic turmoil life would be then: a veritable Paradise.

But if not, by what rational principle do you distinguish what trade is to be "phased out" (forcibly suppressed) and what not?

Yours is a creed of total government power - the opposite of liberalism.

The problem with your theory, as with all collectivism, is that you're thinking in vague and arbitrary generalities. All the criteria you give as distinguishing what you call societies, apply just as much within and between those societies. What has a capuccino-sipper in Melbourned to do with a jackaroo in the Kimberley. The latter has more meaningful interaction with the Indonesians he sells his product too and visit on holiday than the former. You confuse society with the state, confuse violence-based decision-making by a monopoly of force with consent-based thinking by people free to choose, and have supplied no way by which liberalism can be reconciled with its contradictions by democracy.

"Then why not phase out all trade?"

That would be ideal, but I'm not a fanatical idealist. I am a realist.

"by what rational principle do you distinguish what trade is to be "phased out" (forcibly suppressed) and what not?"

No "violent" force required.
Your "voluntary agreements" would decide.

But there could be a bias encouraging domestic production/consumption.

For example, if the tax system was simplified to a single bank transaction tax, foreign transactions could be taxed at a higher rate than domestic ones.

So, if under "free" trade, foreign production/consumption was more lucrative/profitable, you could even the outcomes or make domestic production/consumption more desirable.

People could always buy/sell internationally if they chose, but domestic business would have a slight advantage.

"Yours is a creed of total government power"

Nonsense. I'm simply describing what's already there.
States and their governments existed long before I was born.

I want as little government regulation as possible, socially and economically.

But not *none at all* which seems to be your sentiments, suggesting you're actually an anarchist, not a classical liberal, which is the topic of the article.

"you're thinking in vague and arbitrary generalities."

Politics is nothing but generalities.

Your anti-nationalist anarcho-libetarianism is based on generalities too.
Utopian idealist ones. Nothing but wishful thinking.

There's nothing "vague" or "arbitrary" about anything I say.

"have supplied no way by which liberalism can be reconciled with its contradictions by democracy."

Nor the potential contradictions of both with nationalism.
And I don't have to.

I didn't invent the system we live in.
I didn't create Human Nature either.

Human Nature desires all these impulses (personal liberty, social connections, group decision-making input), and each person and society attempts to reconcile them as best they can.
There are no perfect solutions.

"You confuse blah, blah, blah".

And you confuse my honest, realistic statements with the imaginary fanaticism of the boogeyman you *want* me to be.

I confused you with a serious, genuine person who wasn't just playing pedantic games.
I should have known better.

Why would it be ideal, or even better, to phase out all trade? Just imagine for a sec that no person could exchange anything with any other person. Can you see that thousands of millions of people would die of starvation, disease and exposure? Perhaps you meant something else.

"No "violent" force required."

So the tax would be voluntary, would it? No enforcement? So there'd be no restriction on foreign trade whatsoever? Well I'm inclined to agree with you.

Why should domestic trade be preferred over foreign? Suppose something could be produced overseas for $1 that cost $100 if made in Australia, and your ideal was realised of banning it, then Australians could either pay 100 times more or go without. Why would that be better?

>"Yours is a creed of total government power"

>>Nonsense.

It's not nonsense. You've just told us you think the ideal is for governments to have the power to stop all trade. You think the government has more right to decide every single transaction the people enter into, than the people do themselves. What is that but a creed of total government power?

I'm not arguing for "no government regulation" at all, but that people should be free to enter into whatever voluntary relations they want so long as they are not aggressing against the person or property of others. That's what the standard of liberal democracy, so if you really want as little regulation as possible, that's what you should be advocating, not arbitrary protectionism for no reason based on total government power over every transaction.

Which is why you can't:
a) identify any rational principle to distinguish what trade should be permitted or restricted
b) identify how the democracy you advocate could be liberal democracy
c) explain how governments are more representative of the people, than the people are by their voluntary transactions (hint: tax is not a voluntary transaction).

Perfection is not of this world, so it's a misrepresentation to suggest that's what's in issue. The issue is about what would be morally and pragmatically better, not what's perfect.

"no person could exchange anything with any other person. Perhaps you meant something else."

Yes, perhaps I did.
International trade, smartypants.

"So the tax would be voluntary? No enforcement?"

No "violence", smartypants.
You like using the term "violence" where it's inappropriate.

"[if] your ideal was realised of banning it, then Australians could either pay 100 times more or go without."

I didn't propose banning anything, smartypants.
I only proposed taxing foreign transactions at a higher rate than domestic.
So people could choose the $1 or the $100 item.
But most products would not have such a drastic discrepancy.

"You think the government has more right to decide every single transaction the people enter into, than the people do themselves."

No, they have the right to institute general rules and processes, to tax and restrict trade, which they already do *right now*.
Australians apparently accept such a system, or there'd be a revolution, with Canberra in flames.

"identify any rational principle to distinguish what trade should be permitted or restricted"

I never said that. People would decide.
All I proposed was a domestically-biased tax system.

"identify how the democracy you advocate could be liberal democracy"

There is "liberalism" and there is "democracy".
They are two distinct concepts that don't necessarily gel and can contradict each other.
Both are already accepted by Australians.

"explain how governments are more representative of the people, than the people are by their voluntary transactions"

The current government is not representative.
I support proportional representation and/or direct democracy.
Either of which, however, could still result in "enforced" laws or policies you disapprove of. Too bad.

"Perfection is not of this world, so it's a misrepresentation to suggest that's what's in issue."

Any true reconciliation of all these elements (liberalism, democracy, nationalism) would have to be "perfect" or it wouldn't be a true reconciliation.
I stated that was impossible.

"The issue is about what would be morally and pragmatically better"

Cash registers don't have a "morality" button. Irrelevant.
I've already stated (extensively) the pragmatic reasons why a domestic bias would be beneficial.
I shouldn't need to repeat myself.

"I've already stated (extensively) the pragmatic reasons why a domestic bias would be beneficial."

No you haven't. All you've said is that *if* foreign production or consumption were more lucrative, they could be taxed more, but without saying why.

And it's no use trying to defend it by saying the people could choose to pay the tax, or that the price of foreign goods wouldn't be that much cheaper. The entire point of principle is that you are trying to stop people from entering into transactions which, being consensual, are none of your or the government's business.

"No "violence", smartypants.
You like using the term "violence" where it's inappropriate."

It would only be inappropriate if the enforcement of the tax does not use or threaten violence. It is not acceptable for you to define a tax as a voluntary arrangement because both in fact and in law, tax is not voluntary, and you know it - that's why you're proposing it!

As either using or threatening force constitutes a crime of violence, as defined by the state for everyone else, please admit either that
a) payment would be voluntary, in which case it wouldn't be a tax, by definition, or
b) enforcement would involve the use or threat of violent force, in which case it's not "inappropriate" to point out this fact.
You can't have it both ways.

What we've demonstrated so far is that your proposal involves threatening to attack people for engaging in peaceful transactions with others; whilst you have not established any reason whatsoever why people engaging in peaceful transactions is bad, or threatening to attack them is good, for no other reason than that one party happens to live in Australia.

But if your theory is right, then why not ban or restrict trade between NSW and Queensland for all the same reasons? Why shouldn't consumption of goods made outside NSW be presumed bad for the "society" of NSW?

What you are advocating is national socialism, not liberal democracy.

Shockadelic, if you are under the impression that you support liberal democracy, what do you say is the principle which delimits legitimate from illegitimate governmental exercises of power?

I have no interest in further responding to your ignore-or-distort-everything-he-says game.

Adiós mi enemigo.

You provide no *reason* for alleging that I have ignored or distorted anything you've said, so that's just an open-ended ad hom without any basis in reality, in an attempt to evade the humiliating thrashing you are getting.

We'll just have to leave it on the basis that you have not shown any reason why consuming foreign-produced goods is bad, any reason for taxing them differentially, any rational criterion for governmental protectionism towards any goods or services, any justification whatsoever for your assumption that the government better represents the people by its legal monopoly of aggression and fraud, than the people represent themselves by their voluntary co-operation, nor any concept of legitimate limits on government power. But don't worry, your confusion that you support liberal democracy is common among Australian fascist national socialists.