You have no legal remedy whatsoever against them for taking billions on false misrepresentations (think: “there will be no carbon tax under any government I lead”). Government itself defines tax as an “unrequited” payment, meaning it is *not* payment for goods or services, and entitles you to *nothing whatsoever* in return. All of their revenue is obtained by threatening to have people attacked, caged and raped.

It is simply nonsense to claim governments are more accountable to their subjects than private firms are to their shareholders or customers. If governments were held to the same standards as private corporations, all politicians would be in prison for a very long time.

“governments have access to cheaper finance than the private sector.”

Well if the private sector granted itself a right to threaten to lock people up to get their money, they’d have access to cheaper finance too wouldn’t they? So according to your theory, that would make society more efficient and sustainable, wouldn’t it?

The question is not whether it’s cheaper, it’s whether it’s more efficient, and obviously if it didn’t involve people forcing people to forego what they value more, in favour of what they value less, then no coercion would be necessary, would it? You’re not coming to terms with the fundamental values which efficiency is supposed to serve.

“As for making resource use more sustainable, that's because governments make and enforce laws.”

Making and enforcing laws does not, of itself, make resource use more sustainable. If it did, communism would have been an environmental paradise.

As to your five reasons.

1.
Cheaper capital
If it’s cheaper because of government’s coercive advantage, which it is, then you haven’t established that it’s more efficient, see above.

2.
“the private sector organization not passing on the savings.”

a) You haven’t established why the net benefit to society would be better if they did, than if they didn’t. You’re assuming you know what the configuration of supply, demand and price should be. You don’t. (Or if you do, you need to prove it, not just assume it, because that’s what’s in issue.)

(cont.)

b) Double standard. You haven’t explained why the same, or worse, won’t apply to government.

“This is usually the result of insufficient competition.”

Circularity.

Define “insufficient”. No appeal to allegedly perfect abstract infinitesimal mathematical states, please.

“It can be addressed by regulation, but effective regulation is often difficult.”

Circularity. You’re assuming government is superior at economising. But that’s what you’re supposed to be proving. The reason effective regulation is “often difficult”, is precisely because that assumption has no basis in reality or reason.

3.
“The third reason is where the public sector staff are highly commerted to the job”

(By “commerted” I presume you mean competent or committed or such like.)

This again is not comparing apples with apples, and assumes government’s superiority. The question is not whether government staff are highly competent or expert, the question is whether the same amount of resources could produce more or better net result for society, (or whatever you want to call the ultimate human welfare criterion), than would obtain under a voluntary dispensation.

You haven’t given any reason to think that it would. You’re just assuming it again.

4.
“This is related to the fourth reason: when governments outsource their services, often there's too little incentive to perform efficiently.”

There's too little incentive for *anyone* to perform government services efficiently, precisely because
a) no-one voluntarily pays for them,
b) people value something else more highly, otherwise no coercion would be necessary to fund them, and
c) the concept of efficiency becomes incoherent when the connection between what the consumers want, and what the producers supply, is severed at the root.

That's the whole problem you're trying to get around in the first place, remember?

We don't need to know effective regulation is "often difficult". What you need to prove is whether it can *ever* produce a net benefit, compared to what would obtain under a voluntary dispensation.

The assertion of government’s superior efficiency has no basis in reality. You’re proving my point, not yours.

5
“The fifth reason is the overproliferationn of lawyers in some parts of the private sector.”

This assumes you know what the correct supply of lawyers should be, independently of market prices. (Hint: everyone thinks the supply of lawyers is too much).

But what we’re trying to find out is, *relative to what rational criterion* and *how do you know*?

Answer?

You also assume that the overproliferation has got nothing to do with government’s unjustified activities = begging the question = circular.

“the objective shouldn't be to freeze out either the public sector or the private sector, but rather to get the best result.”

You’re assuming the intrinsic superiority of government at economising whatever it’s doing.

You’ve just proved my argument – there is no rational basis for socialism - not yours, that it’s justified, that it makes the pie bigger, or that it makes for a fairer society.

All
Notice this constant pattern with all the apologists for socialism so far: byork, David, and Aiden?

They
- Enter assuming the superior competence and virtue of government
- When that is questioned, they repeat the assumption,
- When that is questioned, they repeat the assumption
- When that is questioned, they repeat the assumption.

And so on. That's it. That's all they've got. Endlessly going round and round in circles.

What they never do, because they can’t, is show any rational criterion to establish what is in issue, namely government’s supposed superiority at providing goods or services, at ‘growing the pie’, or its alleged selflessness.

Thus we have established, over and over again, that socialism cannot be rationally defended.

On critical examination, it always just crumbles into a garbled jumble of arbitrary moralising, aggressive violations of liberty and property, capital destructionism, corrupt political privileges, armed attacks against peaceable and voluntary society, and disclaiming the results of their own policies.

Their pretensions are false. They should really be called anti-socialists, because that’s all they are.

JKJ, you're being rather disingenuous here. I have not made any assumption of intrinsic superiority of government at economising whatever it’s doing. I suggest you reread what I wrote – 'tis almost the opposite! I said "normally the private sector can do better" and subsequently listed five possible reasons for exceptions. I'm not saying any of them always apply. Indeed I'm not aware of any case of them all applying (although as they're based on public and private sector characteristics, they wouldn't all become apparent until something is privatised or nationalised). Even with the disastrous privatisation of British Rail, not all applied, as the UK government had long denied BR access to cheap capital.

And when I explained my main reason for not preferring "full socialism", your accusation that I'm "assuming the intrinsic superiority of government at economising whatever it’s doing" is highly illogical, for if I was making that assumption then surely I would regard "full socialism" as preferable? (From an economic viewpoint at least; I could still oppose it for reasons of freedom.)

Nor have I made any circular argument. Not a single one. I have made some unsupported claims and incomplete arguments and I make no apologies for that – arguing everything from first principles would be very awkward in a forum with a 350 word*4 post per day limit. Also it would be very tedious and a terrible waste of time. And I wouldn't expect it to be necessary, as there are likely to be points on which we already agree.

Stockyards, fences, shops, mines, factories and offices are user infrastructure: geographically fixed, but not usually meeting my second criterion of other economic activity depending on them being there. There's usually plenty of alternatives, so no reason for the government to get involved. Fences are usually of no benefit other than to those whose land they're on or bordering, so again, no reason for governments to get involved. But there are exceptions, such as those fences that Australia's built to keep rabbits and dingoes out of certain areas.

(To be continued)

"Well if it can't do it at all, it can't do it well, can it?"
Of course, but the claim that it is totally impossible for governments to rationally economise is extraordinary and would require extraordinary evidence. All the evidence I've seen shows they can, though not usually as effectively as the private sector.

"So is robbing petrol stations, but the question is whether you can provide any rational criterion to distinguish it from socialism."
Are you really incapable of providing any rational criteria yourself? I'm starting to suspect that you're trying to win the argument by default by acting stupid in order to convince me that it's not worth continuing!

Robbery generally doesn't redistribute wealth from those who have it and can afford to lose it to those who need it. What robbery does is redistribute wealth from those who have it to those who want it and are unscrupulous enough to endanger others to take it. And it does so in a way that's costly and unpredictable.

"So, having conceded its once-core tenet is wrong, what makes you think the philosophy remains valid?)"
Improved understanding. I didn't just look at the flaws in their arguments, but also to how they reacted to those flaws and what they were trying to achieve and why. And more importantly, I gradually discovered most of the arguments of the right were equally flawed.

Regarding monopolies, the "purpose of the exercise" is to avoid monopoly owners overcharging their customers. I leave it to others to give an exact definition of how high the charges have to be before it constitutes "abuse" but unless you are arguing that it never can, my point stands.

I'm NOT assuming government monopolies don't abuse their position. As I said, it's still something we must watch out for and guard against. However the shareholders of private sector organisations generally just want them to make money, whereas governments usually have a public purpose for the organisations they own.

To be continued...

JKJ,
You're conflating different meanings of "governments". Just because the executive gets away with a lot of lying doesn't mean the entire public sector does.

And government does not get its revenue by threatening to rape people.

"Making and enforcing laws does not, of itself, make resource use more sustainable."
That's like saying "making and enforcing laws does not, of itself, make roads safer."

As to your responses to my five reasons, they appear to be the result of poor comprehension on your part – they're reasons why the public sector can be more efficient than the private sector, not an attempt at proof that it is. But note the following:

1. I wasn't thinking of coercive power, but rather the fact that Australia owns the Reserve Bank so can always borrow cheaply. And state governments generally have good credit ratings, so why shouldn't they take advantage of that?

2a. Are you really ignorant of something so basic as why the net benefit to society would be better if the savings were passed on?

2b. I've already addressed most of your points.
And though it is not what I'm claiming, the position that "private monopolists abuse their position, and that government monopolists don’t" does not assume that "governments are superior at economising" as economising relates to costs, not prices.

3.Apologies for the typo. It should have said committed.

An example is the ABC. Many staff prefer to work for it even though they could earn more money working elsewhere.

4. How much do you honestly think those factors impact on how well individuals do their jobs? And why, if they have so little incentive, do you think the WA government managed to get such better value for money for the School Halls scheme than the outsourced management in Vic and NSW?

5. The problem isn't the actual number of lawyers, but rather a shift in mindset from "what can we achieve?" to "what can we get away with?"

As for growing the pie, Gough Whitlam introduced free university education. Has anyone on the right done anything comparable?