You answer my prior questions first. They prove there’s no argument for me to answer.

All your retorts are either ad hominem, or they presuppose that you’ve established what you have failed to defend.

As to the economics, you have not been able to defend the proposition that the state can do *anything* more economically efficiently.

As to the ethics, you're entire philosophy is built on advocating aggressive violence, because that's how the state
a) gets its revenue, and
b) enforces all the policies you advocate.

1. Ethics

"I AM NOT TRYING TO FORCE PEOPLE INTO SUBMISSION AND OBEDIENCE!"

Then answer the question please: at what stage in the enforcement of the policies you advocate do you renounce the enforcement of them? A cop goes to arrest someone. You say go ahead. The guy doesn’t accept being forced into submission. The cop goes to tazer him. And you say ... what? Go ahead? Or stop?

Or you were confused and didn't understand that, by advocating policies, you were advocating the enforcement of policies, and therefore the initiation of aggressive violence or threats?

Explain please.

2. Economics
"[the left has] been discredited by those with an illogical opposition to markets and by those who want nationalization for its own sake rather than for efficiency gains."

But you haven't been able to establish that the state is capable of *any* efficiency gains, rather than zero-sum expropriations based on aggressive violence.

All you've offered are slogans, as if these prove your case for you: "infrastructure", "monopoly", “cheaper finance”, and so on. We have seen how these crumble on critical examination because you either can't distinguish what you say government should not be providing from what you say it should, or assume what’s in issue.

Your entire efficiency argument turns on this point, which you have no way of knowing or calculating: by what rational criterion how do you know whether government is providing too much, too little, or just the right amount of anything it’s providing, in terms of the subjective valuations of the payers for and intended consumers of the service?

Jardine,

"You answer my prior questions first. They prove there’s no argument for me to answer."
On the contrary, questions that have a false assumption built into them prove either laziness, stupidity or dishonesty when you continue to ask them after I've pointed out that false assumption. I know this looks like an ad hominem but what other explanation is there for your behaviour?

"Then answer the question please: at what stage in the enforcement of the policies you advocate do you renounce the enforcement of them? A cop goes to arrest someone. You say go ahead. The guy doesn’t accept being forced into submission. The cop goes to tazer him. And you say ... what? Go ahead? Or stop?"
I'm not trying to force those policies to become law. But when the policies are law, the law should be enforced. There's normally no need to use violence to do so, but I believe the current situation, which I have no intention of changing, is that if the suspect uses violence then the police have a right to use violence to protect themselves and others.

"But you haven't been able to establish that the state is capable of *any* efficiency gains, rather than zero-sum expropriations based on aggressive violence."
You haven't been willing to consider that the state is capable of any efficiency gains. And can you stop the ridiculous rhetoric about violence? Property rights are based on the right to enforce the restrictions on others using or accessing that property, but you don't see me banging on about property being based on violence even though exactly the same argument applies.

You've admitted the market process isn't perfect, and I've identified some ways in which government ownership can sometimes deliver better value results. But rather than giving them serious consideration, you instinctively rant against them to ridiculous extremes (like defending private monopolies) and label them slogans!

...

If you started thinking critically rather than getting your opinions from the morons at mises.org, you'd see that my points are very real. Supplying the infrastructure needed to grow the economy is not something where you can rely on the normal competition process to ensure the benefits of working more efficiently are passed onto the end users. Cheaper finance is effectively cutting out the middle man – bypassing the banks who would otherwise take a profit without a corresponding decrease in risk. And since interest rates are set to control inflation, sovereign currency issuing governments have the additional option of lending at a lower rate to finance projects that will have a significant deflationary effect.

"Your entire efficiency argument turns on this point, which you have no way of knowing or calculating: by what rational criterion how do you know whether government is providing too much, too little, or just the right amount of anything it’s providing, in terms of the subjective valuations of the payers for and intended consumers of the service?"
It appears you don't have a way of knowing or calculating it either – you just assume that anything the government provides is too much!

You're also conflating the benefits of trade and ownership. It's absolutely true that If you buy a hammer from Bunnings for $5, you value the hammer more than you value the $5 and vice versa for Bunnings. But the axiom would still be true if you bought it at Australia Post, or if the government owned the hammer manufacturer.

I am generally in favour of free trade. Exceptions do exist: I generally support regulating the sale of dangerous or harmful things, and I support some regulation of service provision to enable and encourage cross subsidisation to occur. I also support labour market regulation and compliance with international sanctions. But apart from that, I think everyone should be able to trade freely with whoever they want, and I oppose GST. So please respond to my stated opinions rather than categorising me and responding to what you think a socialist would think!

Dear Aidan,

<<Socialism can be implemented by normal democratic means.>>

I know this, but democracy means that a majority can impose its way of life over minorities and individuals, using as much force as necessary: this is unacceptable.

You have just responded to Jardine that "I believe the current situation, which I have no intention of changing, is that if the suspect uses violence then the police have a right to use violence to protect themselves and others". Well then, yes it is the current situation, but if the "suspect", that is the person who refuses to obey the regime (democratic or otherwise, makes no difference), is being attacked by police for no other reason and uses violence only in self defence against them, then this makes the current situation unacceptable.

<<It does not require people to be social. I'm not sure what you mean by "to participate in the social game".>>

So what do you do when people refuse to even talk with you, or speak your language, or register through your administration, or use the money you print or the infrastructure you provide - insisting on being left alone and using their own instead?

<<Why, when productivity per person has grown so much faster than population, do you think remuneration for work would decline in real terms to a point where it's hard to make ends meet?>>

Due to genetic instincts, when there is plenty, organisms breed and multiply themselves indefinitely.

Though I doubt it, I wouldn't argue whether it's possible to keep economic growth indefinitely growing faster than population - this is because even if somehow it is, then the side-effects are terrible: a spiralling number of humans along with a spiralling dependency on higher and yet higher technology, designed to compensate for that number. This is certainly not the kind of world I want to live in.

"Questions that have a false assumption built into them"

I notice you didn't have the temerity to stipulate what that false assumption supposedly is.

What false assumption?

Jardine –

I'm referring to your false assumptions that I'm trying to force people into submission and obedience, and that the policies I advocate would require the use of violence to enforce.

And not only did I stipulate them, I explained why they were false.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Yuyutsu,

Most democratic countries, including Australia, have strict laws to prevent that sort of incident occurring. If those laws are broken it is indeed unacceptable, but nothing to do with economic policy.

But I do agree we need protection against the tyranny of the majority. That's why we have a constitution.

"So what do you do when people refuse to even talk with you, or speak your language, or register through your administration, or use the money you print or the infrastructure you provide - insisting on being left alone and using their own instead?"
If they refuse to speak your language or talk at all, nothing – people have a right to free speech and a right to remain silent.

They are required to use the money to pay tax (if they meet the criteria for paying tax) but apart from that they're free to use any currency they want if the people they're trading with agree.

If they don't use the infrastructure, so what? They're not compelled to. In most cases they're not compelled to register for anything either.

There are a few exceptions, such as for the purpose of child protection, but generally if people want to be left alone they can be.

"Due to genetic instincts, when there is plenty, organisms breed and multiply themselves indefinitely."
Humans have (and use) tools to control their own fertility. It's not "where there is plenty" that the population growth rate is very high, it's where people consider it to be underpopulated. The difference may be subtle, but it's very important.