Aidan
Where did you get the idea that government is some kind of efficiency-generating device, or makes resource-use more sustainable?

Are you sure you it wasn’t during your compulsory government indoctrination? Because in case you haven’t noticed, it has no basis in reality or reason.

Jane Goodall showed what no-one had known about chimpanzees before. One of them was that they form themselves into marauding bands that invade each others’ territories and kill the other chimps. It is this tendency in humans, perhaps inherited from a common ancestor, that gives rise to the institution of government.

Saw a doco on Robert the Bruce last night. Guys hacking and slashing each other. That’s where governments come from. ISIS.

Once established, the Big Rock-Ape is then in a position to dictate terms of obedience, tribute, and privilege to everyone else. That’s where the institutions of sovereignty, jurisdiction, legislation and taxation come from. They are just threats and thieving by a different name.

Government is a gang of thieves writ large. At best, it’s a protection racket of which you might get the protection even while it extorts you. Actually at best you might be the privileged recipient of what the Big Ape has stolen from those weaker and less aggressive. All political socialism amounts to the wish that this power, and this stealing, will become the general condition of society.

Yuyutsu
“I was looking for ways to curb the problems (without incurring the worse problems that socialism brings) and all I could come up with was a voluntary society”

I agree. I don’t think they’re political problems.

Life is stress. Read a NatGeo article about a westerner staying with some hunter gatherers. 4 a.m. and “I’m hungry” says one of them. So they have to go off to the hill to hunt baboons with fangs like knives.

The problems of scarcity aren’t caused or exacerbated by capitalism.

All
The moral revolution, and the ideal society, is for people to stop approving the initiation of aggression, not for a monopoly of coercion to forcibly expropriate capital goods and dictate the conditions of production.

Jardine K. Jardine, the answer to your first question is "in your head". In reality government ownership doesn't automatically bring efficiency nor sustainability. However there are good reasons why it can: firstly, governments have access to cheaper finance than the private sector. Secondly the most efficient method of infrastructure provision (in terms of costs and benefits) usually involves regeional monopolies. But the private sector have a strong incentive to abuse any monopolies they gain (and a track record of doing so). The public sector, being accountable to all the people rather than just the shareholders, don't have such a strong tendency for monopoly abuse (though it's still something we must watch out for and guard against).

My point about supporting nationalization where it leads to greater efficiency is that I DON'T support nationalization of everything, and there's no good reason why anyone on the left should. It's as stupid as Mises! I notice youre repeating that imbecile's claims about fascism being the result of attempting to replace capitalism with something else. Are you unaware of what happened under Pinnochet in Chile or Suharto in Indonesia? Fascism occurs if individual rights are disregarded whether those in power are for or against capitalism.

As for making resource use more sustainable, that's because governments make and enforce laws. Without governments there'd be anarchy, and it would be almost impossible to achieve the level of cooperation that modern society depends on. I inserted the word "almost" because unlike those chimps, we have language ability, and it's possible for different control structures to emerge. An examole of that is Australian Aboriginal Law extending across different tribal groups.

There's a stereotype that the left want to redistriute the pie more fairly (which they define as more equally) and the right want to grow the pie. In reality it's the other way round: the left want to grow the pie and the right want it distributed more fairly (which they define as keeping more of it with those who already have it).

Aidan
I had hoped to reply to you this evening but something has come up and I'll try tomorrow to deal with the points you have raised.

However the general issue is whether government can rationally economise. If your assumptions or assertions are true, then why wouldn't it be true in general, i.e. why do you not support full socialism?

However if, or once, you concede that full socialism cannot rationally economise, then the question becomes, by what rational criterion do you distinguish the economic activities in which government admittedly cannot, from those in which it supposedly can, rationally economise? Why don't the same arguments against full governmental control of the means of production apply to whatever partial control you support? Merely calling it "infrastructure" won't answer, because that only begs the question by what rational criterion you distinguish infrastructure from other capital goods.

If you can't answer these questions, then there's no need for me to address the issues you have raised.

PS Remember it has to be a rational demonstration. You can't just assume or assert it, which is what you did above, because that's what's in issue, so if you do that the argument is circular = fallacious = irrational, and you're proving my argument and contradicting your own.

You have to show how government is going to ration scarce resources to their most valued ends, as judged by those paying for, and those consuming, the service, and using some rational criterion.

I don't believe you can do it but if you can by all means prove me wrong please.

JKJ

Infrastructure differs from other capital goods by being geographically fixed. A second characteristic is that other economic activity depends on it being there.

The issue is not whether the government can rationally economise, but how well it can do so. Because normally the private sector can do better. But I can think of five reasons why it's possible for the public sector can be more efficient. The first, as I've mentioned, is cheaper capital. The second is the private sector organization not passing on the savings. This is usually the result of insufficient competition. It can be addressed by regulation, but effective regulation is often difficult. The third reason is where the public sector staff are highly commerted to the job they do, particularly if they're highly specialized and have been doing it for years. Not only does the private sector often not have the expertise, but it doesnt always recognise the need for that expertise until it's too late. This is related to the fourth reason: when governments outsource their services, often there's too little incentive to perform efficiently. The classic example is the school halls scheme — very bad value in the states where management was outsourced to the private sector, but good value in the states where it was managed by the public sector. The fifth reason is the overproliferationn of lawyers in some parts of the private sector.

I assume by "full socialism" you mean public ownership of the means of production. That's a definition I reject, as for the last half century or so, it's mainly been about redistribution of wealth. But in answer to your question, the objective shouldn't be to freeze out either the public sector or the private sector, but rather to get the best result. Markets are a very useful tool for this, but governments must be very careful how they use markets.

Aidan

"Infrastructure differs from other capital goods by being geographically fixed."

Stockyards? Fences? Shops? Mines? Factories? Offices?

I’m getting the impression you haven’t thought this through.

"The issue is not whether the government can rationally economise, but how well it can do so."

Well if it can't do it at all, it can't do it well, can it?

"That's [socialism as public ownership of the means of production] a definition I reject, as for the last half century or so, it's mainly been about redistribution of wealth."

So is robbing petrol stations, but the question is whether you can provide any rational criterion to distinguish it from socialism.

(BTW the only reason the socialists changed tack was because socialising the means of production was such a spectacular failure. So, having conceded its once-core tenet is wrong, what makes you think the philosophy remains valid?)

Your argument, or rather assumptions, about monopoly fail for four reasons.

Firstly, if the purpose of the exercise is to avoid the *possibility* of a *voluntary* monopoly, it is impossible to see how the *certainty* of a *coercive* monopoly is in any better position.

Secondly, you haven’t defined monopoly or “abuse”. To do so you will have to show by what rational criterion you distinguish monopoly price from competitive price. Go ahead.

Thirdly, you’re using a double standard. You assume that private monopolists “abuse” their position, and that government monopolists don’t. However that is to merely assume that government is superior at economising, which is what is in issue = circular argument. You’re assuming what is yours to prove. If your assumption were correct, full communism would have been a wonderful success.

Fourthly, it’s factually untrue that government supposedly is more "accountable". They never account to you for how much tax you pay (all of it, not just income tax), and they almost certainly don’t know. They never account to you for what they spend it on. You have no right to withhold payment. The law against misleading and deceptive conduct applies only in trade and commerce, not in government or politics.

(cont.)