Dear Aidan,

<<I did mention that there were exceptions such as for the purpose of child protection, so you really don't need to elaborate on that.>>

I have given some deep thought to the issue of children and arrived at far-reaching consequences. I am willing to share them with you, but I have no time for that right now.

<<Aren't they more likely to confiscate and auction your assets to raise the money?>>

Whichever they do first:

If I accept the validity of their "auction", in a currency which I do not recognise, then myself, my family and my community would either starve to death - and/or have no space to roam hence will be jailed wherever we go for "trespassing".

And if we don't accept the validity, then bulldosers of the new "legal owner" would come attacking our property, then do we resist them and be killed or go to jail, or do we end up again starving or jailed for trespassing? ... or perhaps locked up in a mental institute for acting "irrationally"...

Either way, it's violent and unacceptable.

<<how do you explain Japan?>>

They have food but ran out of space, building there is very expensive. Also, they have the highest dependence on electronic high-tech in the world, including heavy reliance on robots - that's disgusting and not how I want to live.

You asked Jardine:

<<Anyway, you seem to be of the view that everyone who's not an anarchist is trying to force people into submission and obedience.

Is that your view?>>

It is my view anyway: anyone who believes that it is acceptable for anyone (or any group) to rule over others, is violent. Note however that:

1) Defending oneself, one's family and one's society does not amount to ruling over others, because the focus is on [protecting] ME/US, rather than on [controlling] THEM.

2) When people voluntarily agree to cooperate and be bound by some constitution, then this also does not amount to ruling over others, because we have freely volunteered to become "we" with them.

Jardine, your ridiculous accusation of my having lost the argument shows a serious deficiency in logic on your part.

Your statement that "According to your theory, there is no way that government can be demonstrated to be more efficient than the private sector because 'the axiom would be true' either way" is FALSE. What it shows, which is what I claimed, is that the benefits depend on trade not private ownership. It doesn't say anything about the relative merits of public and private ownership. Just because it can't be used as the basis of a comparison doesn't mean it precludes a comparison.

"a) assuming what is in issue = fallacy"
Well if the axiom doesn't hold if either the shop or the manufacturer is owned by the government, perhaps you can point out why not?

But I think the fallacious assumption was entirely on your part, as you assumed it to be a claim about the relative merits of the public and private sector, when all it was was a rebuttal of your argument.

"b) self-contradiction – you disclaimed circular argument."
I did not make a circular argument, I merely pointed out a flaw in your argument.

"If your theory was true, full communism would have just as economically efficient as capitalism"
FALSE. The axiom says nothing about economic efficiency. But full communism would prevent competition, so the hammer would be likely to cost more, so economic efficiency would be lower.

"It wouldn’t have made any economic difference whether government provides something, or the private sector does, because the axiom would be true either way"
If it's the same thing at the same price (and not subsidised) then yes.

"Complete economic illiteracy"
No, complete economic illiteracy would be to assume that the public sector and the private sector can always provide the same thing at the same price. An example is your next claim below:
"So even if your idiot theory was granted, all you would have proved is that there’s no justification for government providing anything, because it doesn’t make any difference: 'the axiom would still be true'. "

Intriguing how this thread has gone.

Maybe there are two sorts of 'Left', or ex-'Left':

* one thinks of Socialism or Marxism, as a promised Utopia, a thoroughly-thought-out body of principles which lays down what to do and how to get there; which promises certainty, a rounding-off of all the rough ends of history, and - at last - something to embed oneself into. In other words, a religion, something to be defended no matter what, the rituals of which one must accentuate precisely when it seems to have failed, and when it is attacked by un-believers and worse, ex-believers: socialism thus provides certainty, doubt is the enemy;

and

* the other has been more interested in an ideological path which gives hope that oppression and exploitation and human misery can be countered, and which has turned to Socialism for the practical answers, and for the best ways to put those into practice; but who (eventually) move away from 'false gods' or from 'socialist' situations which go bad, in order to find something else which might work better, to achieve the hoped-for ends; to such practitioners, the goals are important but the means, the practicalities, the realities, are morally more so, and when situations go bust, as seems to have happened in every case of 'socialism' to date, they look somewhere else. To them, socialism is not a religion, it is or it isn't a practical guide to a better world, and if it doesn't work, it gets junked. In the process, such 'Leftists' come to tolerate uncertainty, openness and incompleteness, as ever-present factors. Such people are loyal to no particular ideology, each one must 'prove' itself in terms of its efficacy in improving the world genuinely, even if incrementally.

Just reflecting on the above posts :)

Joe

Aidan

1. Ethics
“you seem to be the only confused one. The bit about the threat of violence is correct and I was aware of it ... I admit I wasn't aware police arresting someone legally constitutes violence.”

So you accuse me of being confused even while you admit that you yourself were confused and wrong.

(If you had thought about whether the actions of the police were violence, without assuming that the state has a right to do what is a crime of violence for everyone else, it would have been obvious that threatening to, or physically stopping or seizing people, let alone at gunpoint, are violence.)

“Anyway, you seem to be of the view ... trying to force people into submission and violence?”

Stop trying to squirm out it.

You said that you don’t support using aggressive violence to force people into submission and obedience.

We have now established - with your agreement - that what you support as the basis of every policy you advocate, are in fact using aggressive violence to force people into submission and obedience, including having people hounded, threatened, handcuffed, tasered, caged, shot and raped; and that it is the basis of your political philosophy – because if it wasn’t, you’d be a libertarian - and it defines the ethical issues between us.

Once you explicitly acknowledge that that is true, I’ll answer your questions based on it.

If you don’t acknowledge it’s true, then perhaps you can explain what you have evaded four times: at what point do you renounce your support for aggressive violence, and at that point renounce socialism?

2.
Economics

“... if the axiom doesn't hold if ... the shop or the manufacturer is owned by the government, perhaps you can point out why not?” …
“What it shows, which is what I claimed, is that the benefits depend on trade not private ownership.”

(cont.)

All these points are economically related:
the use of coerced versus consensual transactions, the ability to determine whether exchanges were mutually beneficial, the ability to determine the ratio of costs to benefits; whether (net) benefits depend on trade or private ownership; and whether government can do anything more economically efficiently than would obtain under a voluntary dispensation.

To understand why, let’s go back to first principles. Efficiency refers to the relation between inputs and outputs. Okay? Fair enough?

(And since what is less rather than more efficient cannot (cet. par.) be more sustainable, therefore if the argument of government’s supposed greater economic efficiency fails, the argument it can rationally promote sustainability also fails.)

To make a rational proof of efficiency, we need to compare the *ratio* of inputs to outputs for given ends.

For example: the Ford does 100 km per 10L of fuel (or per $10), while the Holden does 120 km for the same fuel or money cost, THEREFORE the Holden is more fuel efficient.

But if we just say "Fords do some things better” or “because only a lazy, stupid or dishonest person could disagree” or “because the objective should not be to freeze out either Ford or Holden” or “Ford has dedicated staff” = not a rational proof of efficiency in that case.

Okay? Fair enough?

For you to make a rational proof that government can do some things more efficiently therefore, you would need three things that you haven’t been providing, and I don’t think you can:
1. Given ends. In the example above, we assumed that you and I share the goal of wanting to achieve greater fuel efficiency.
But you can't demonstrate that assumption of given ends in any question in which government provides a “service”, because obviously if you have to threaten to shoot, cage and rape people into obeying you, in order to a) fund or b) ‘consume’ the service, you can’t demonstrate that the ends you are trying to achieve are shared by everyone who has to be forced or threatened into achieving it: in other words, by society.

2. You would have to show that the government use of resources to provide a particular good or service is *absolutely* efficient, i.e. that the money costs are less than the money benefits. This is at least possible, by looking at their accounts. Government departments can and do meet that standard.
However often of course, the cost will be greater, because that’s the whole point of having government provide the service. They’re not trying to make a money profit, which is valid – i.e. assuming aggressive violence is okay to to get what you want.
But it’s not sound, from the PoV of demonstrating “efficiency”. A money loss demonstrates a failure of your argument either under this point 2. – absolute efficiency - or under point 1. - given ends.

3. You would have to show that the government use of resources is *relatively* efficient, i.e. compared to capitalism. This is impossible for at least three reasons.
i) You then have all the problems of point 1. all over again, i.e. whether the public interest *really is* identical with whatever the government says it is.
ii) You have the socialist incentive problem (need to demonstrate that public officials would value public goods the same as their own)
iii) then there’s the economic calculation problem (how can you establish *exchange ratios* equal to or better than the market, if your funding and/or consumption are based on coercion?
How are you even going to know what the exchange ratios should be (Bunnings/PO problem? Such evaluations are a) subjective, b) zillionesque, c) dispersed throughout the population, and d) constantly changing.

You have all the same economic problems as full socialism.

(There are other impossibilities, but perhaps you could start by dealing with these?)

If you read the dialogue between me and David McMullen above, you will see that he went out backwards failing to defend the argument you’re putting up now.

And finally, even if you were able to get through all those baffles, you would only have established that government could equal, not better, the efficiency of the market = fail.