All the points you raised, about infrastructure, monopoly, externalities etc. assume that you don’t have the above-numbered problems; and you assume that government has nothing to do with causing any of the problems you’re trying to solve. So it’s not necessary for me to deal with these invalid assumptions unless you can get to square one, and establish that government can economise more efficiently in anything in the first place.

At best, your arguments against capitalism would only amount to saying that it’s not perfect, or not as you would like it to be, in which case, why don’t you provide the services you think others should, with your own capital? Why violence?

Now think of it this way. If the socialists are right, the enormous economic and humanitarian disasters under full socialism, and the fact they kept repeating every time it was tried, are just some kind of strange coincidence, nothing to do with the socialist project of public control of the means of production. But if rational economising is impossible under socialism, that has explaining power, doesn’t it?

We have established that:
- all political socialism is based on and intrinsically depends on aggressive violence
- all species of political socialism cannot rationally economise.

These means that all socialist claims to stand for a more caring or compassionate society or socially just or progressive society are completely bogus, as are all its claims whatsoever to stand for greater economic or pragmatic efficiency or sustainability. These ideas are every bit as irrational as reading birds' gizzards, sacrificing virgins, or selling indulgences: worse, because they are based on the idea that aggressive violence and capital destructionism are the key to a more humane and prosperous society.

Jardine –
Firstly let's get one thing straight: I do not support rape under any circumstances.
Please apologise for that vicious lie!

I support the ability of the police to use reasonable force to enforce the law.
Do you oppose the ability of the police to use reasonable force to enforce the law?
If so, what would you do instead?

I do not support the use of aggressive violence in other situations.
I do not support any form of socialism that would (IMO) be likely to cause or require more aggressive violence.

All transactions in the example were consensual. I do not support coerced transactions except for the purpose of law enforcement.

You have a very simplistic view of efficiency. Reality is rather more complicated, and the car that's most efficient on the freeway may not be the one that's more efficient in city traffic.

And if Holdens are more efficient than Fords, you can't logically claim that it's because they have better brakes!

Point 1 is irrelevant because it does not involve any coerced transactions.
Point 2 is far more complicated than it sounds because there are a lot of externalities which should be taken into account for an accurate result.
Point 3 DOESN'T assume that the public interest is identical to what the government says it is, but rather that it's closer to what the government says it is than to the 'do nothing' option.

There are some perfectly logical reasons why things make sense for governments to fund when they don't make sense for individuals to fund. The first, as I've mentioned, is that there are externalities that should be taken into account. The second is that individuals are far more credit constrained. The third is that the human lifespan is limited – and the working life even more so. Governments should plan for the future.

Jardine (continued)
"At best, your arguments against capitalism would only amount to saying that it’s not perfect, or not as you would like it to be, in which case, why don’t you provide the services you think others should, with your own capital?"
For a start, I don't have access to that much capital!
"Why violence? "
My support of the ability of police to use reasonable force to enforce the law has nothing to do with my economic philosophy, how ever much you try to claim otherwise.

"Now think of it this way. If the socialists are right, the enormous economic and humanitarian disasters under full socialism, and the fact they kept repeating every time it was tried, are just some kind of strange coincidence, nothing to do with the socialist project of public control of the means of production."
They're not coincidence at all, they're the result of preventing markets from working.

"We have established that:
- all political socialism is based on and intrinsically depends on aggressive violence
- all species of political socialism cannot rationally economise. "
We have established neither of those things – you just keep restating them and ignoring the evidence to the contrary.

This topic heading does not include "21st Right". These people exist out there.

As I've said before on another page, that if you don't fit to the categories or standards of left or right wing movements, you are often attacked and made to defend your credentials as you don't fit into their standards, having a range of opinions, be in a minority group or be very individual.

That can be for example - having strong views on the environment (but not being a left/right wing person). For example if you read the Greens view on population policy and the environment is weak (in my view) http://greens.org.au/policies/population and says things like:

"Our environmental impact and ecological footprint is not determined by population numbers alone" despite existing people in Australia having a high environmental impact via day to day living (then consider birth here and those moving here for commercial reasons). This supposedly coming from what is viewed as a '21st left' political party?

Also minority groups (right wing) can force activity onto others. Where I live we have a business group, funded by a compulsory council business levy, the group's executive (of about five people) with a total of $105,000) per year had their first big project as a giant 5.5m high metal cube as an entrance statement.

A 'large' number of people objected (a full page of letters to our local newspaper, a public meeting held and I contacted the Advertiser Newspaper and got a half page newspaper story on the topic.

There is too much force worldwide, but simply avoiding discussion on what could be good for a community, and not considering a vast array of ideas and not working together isn't helpful either.

Aidan

1. Ethics
So we have now established by your own admission that you think it’s okay for people to be physically attacked, humiliated, handcuffed, electrocuted, caged, shot and killed so as to force them into submission and obedience with your political beliefs, for entirely peaceable and consensual transactions with private property that are none of your business.

As government either cannot or will not stop rape in prison, the high risk of it is IN FACT an intrinsic part of a sentence of imprisonment. Therefore the fact that you feel a moral abhorrence for rape doesn’t mean you don’t support rape and the threat of rape in fact, on an industrial scale, for political ends. It means you need to *re-think* your political beliefs!

You need to take responsibility for the fact that you support inflicting and threatening real actual aggressive physical violence including rape, on REAL PEOPLE. Your sense of disassociation from the violence you support inflicting, your factually false belief that you don’t support aggressive violence, is based on factually false beliefs that you have explicitly defended, that
1. violence isn’t violence if the state does it, which it is,
2. aggressive violence is morally okay if the state does it, which it isn’t. The very fact that you tried to squirm out of admitting it, proves that you know it’s morally wrong.

All you’ve tried to do, as concerns your ethical argument, is pretend the facts don’t exist: violence isn’t violence, or isn’t bad, if the state does it. Now just think for a sec. Where do you think you might have got these doggedly inflexibly plainly false brainwashed beliefs? Don’t try to turn the argument to my personality. Think! What agency might have been responsible for planting and cultivating these factually false and immoral beliefs in your mind? You don’t even agree with them yourself!

2. Economics
“Point 1 is irrelevant because it does not involve any coerced transactions”

There, see, you’re doing it again?! You’ve gone back to trying to pretend that violence isn’t violence when the state does it.

(cont.)

Aidan, the threat of enforcement underlies ALL law and policy. Policy means police-y. It means what you’re going to get the police to use the state’s claim of a legal monopoly of aggressive violence, to force and threaten people into obeying.

Therefore you are unable to establish that any given end you are trying to achieve by socialist policy is shared by society given society have to be forced into it by threats of being attacked, caged and raped.

Therefore that’s a complete fail on Point 1 – given ends.

“Point 2 is far more complicated than it sounds because there are a lot of externalities which should be taken into account for an accurate result.”

You haven’t
a) taken any externalities into account in units of a lowest common denominator, or
b) demonstrated that government is capable of, or representative in doing so
c) demonstrated the absolute efficiency in issue. You’re just ASSUMING it again.

Therefore that’s a complete fail on point 2 – absolute efficiency.

“Point 3 DOESN'T assume that the public interest is identical to what the government says it is, but rather that it's closer to what the government says it is than to the 'do nothing' option.”

Aidan, the issue is precisely whether the public interest is closer to what the government says it is, than what voluntary society says it is. So you’re assuming what is in issue, so you’re arguing in a circle – again! And you disclaimed circular argument, so you’re contradicting yourself again.

NB the alternative option isn’t “do nothing”. The alternative is PEACEABLE, NON-VIOLENT, CONSENSUAL PRODUCTIVE transactions based on liberty and property. You’re demonstrating a brainwashed belief that no action exists outside of the State.

So that’s a failure to demonstrate that government is or can be relatively economic efficient compared to capitalism.

Plus, you didn’t even try to demonstrate that, or how, government can get around
a) the socialist incentive problem
b) the economic calculation problem.

Clearly it can’t, and that’s why you avoided even trying to demonstrate any rational answer to those points.