Therefore that’s a *complete failure* on your part to demonstrate that government can *ever* do *anything* more economically efficiently than would obtain under a voluntary dispensation if society actually wanted it done in the first place.

All you’ve done is go round and round in circles trying to pretend that tax, law and policy are not based on coercion, when not even the government agrees with you. Or pretending that aggressive violence doesn’t affect people’s downstream economic values and actions, thereby contradicting your own premise.

“For a start, I don't have access to that much capital!”

That’s because the masses aren’t giving it to you in exchange for what you’re producing; and the reason is, because they don’t agree with your views about what constitutes the public interest. In a word, you’re wrong. You’re trying to get the state to steal that capital instead, and confusing the public interest with the state’s interest.

“They [the enormous economic and humanitarian disasters under full socialism] [a]re not coincidence at all, they're the result of preventing markets from working.”

Thank you for conceding that partial socialism is only viable to the extent that it is predatory and parasitic on a system of voluntary productive activity that it violently threatens, attacks, exploits, corrupts and reduces.

Thank you for conceding that the only thing stopping socialism from degenerating into complete disaster is the capitalism that you oppose, to the extent of your socialism.

“ignoring the evidence to the contrary”

a) you haven’t cited any evidence to the contrary. Repeatedly squarking slogans is not evidence.
b) While the (uncited) evidence for you is contingent, equivocal and disputed, and the logic against you is categorical and unanswered, it just means you’re confused: *despite* doesn’t mean *because of*.

By the way, ALL my questions have been directed at disproving my own beliefs. Your ad hominem insult that I refuse to critically examine my own beliefs is mere projection on your part.

All you’re doing by your endlessly re-circular behaviour is proving my case for me: socialism is just an irrational belief system.

NathanJ
“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.”

So it’s okay to threaten to physically attack people to get their property without their consent, or force them into submission and obedience with your political beliefs?

If there’s too much force worldwide, increasing it’s not going to make the situation any better, is it?

“Where I live we have a business group, funded by a compulsory council business levy”

That’s an argument against compulsory levies, not in favour of more, isn't it? They wouldn't have spent the money on the thing you didn't want, if council hadn't forced them to give it to council in the first place, would they? Perhaps both you and they would have been better off if there was less force? And the same worldwide?

All
We have now established that all the claims of the socialists to promote a fairer or more productive society are bogus to the core.

Socialism is the most violent belief system in the history of the world, bar none. And the idea that it makes society economically better off is, as we have seen, nothing but circular irrational anti-social nonsense.

Notice the self-contradiction and total confusion of the socialists on every single point they have made in the entire thread?

JKJ, I don't think I have ever encountered someone so absolutely certain of the absolute correctness of their own beliefs and argument as you. Except perhaps for one or two of the old communist veterans I knew in the party several decades ago who had transformed from dialectical thinkers into quasi-religious dogmatists. I hope I am never so absolutely certain of my own correctness.

In response to Jardine K. Jardine,

"So it’s okay to threaten to physically attack people to get their property without their consent, or force them into submission and obedience with your political beliefs?"

I don't know if you volunteer with any organisations, but I do. This means it is important to consider a range of opinions to come to a good outcome - and people for example on the groups executive committee (I am on three) all of our members need to be reasonably satisfied with how to move forward. It is not about force or any elements of right or left wing viewpoints.

It is more about views from all taken on board and being open minded as much as possible.

I don't want to push my own personal views onto others (like being vegetarian) for example, as my parents did, trying to force me to continue to eat meat. However you then say (despite the fact I am not socialist - and don't have extreme left or right wing viewpoints):

"We" (whoever these people are) have now established that all the claims of the socialists to promote a fairer or more productive society are bogus to the core."

It doesn't seem logical to your case, does it? Any person can believe what they want, and forceful or generalising comments won't change that.

Jardine

Your restating an absurd claim doesn't mean we've established it, it merely means I've so far failed to cure you of your delusion. Yes, you, personally! You have been making all sorts of baseless allegations about what I believe because you think that you can win the argument by setting up a strawman. But I very much doubt anyone who's still reading this is dumb enough to believe that demolishing your own strawman means you've won any argument against me.

I do NOT think it’s okay for people to be physically attacked, humiliated, handcuffed, electrocuted, caged, shot or killed so as to force them into submission and obedience with my political beliefs, for entirely peaceable and consensual transactions with private property that are none of my business.

Prison rape isn't as common here than in America. It is not acceptable under any circumstances, and the government should make every reasonable effort to eliminate it. I don't think eliminating the option of sending convicts to prison counts as a reasonable effort, and I don't think you really believe it does either.

As I said, "I support the ability of the police to use reasonable force to enforce the law". I noticed you didn't have an answer for the following questions:
"Do you oppose the ability of the police to use reasonable force to enforce the law?
If so, what would you do instead?"

But your connection of this to economics is extremely tenuous. You're wrongly assuming that because governments have coercive powers that they can use in some circumstances, everything they do is coercive. 'Tis as if a cop can't buy a donut without it being labelled a "coerced transaction"!

If you tried to understand my arguments before trying to dismiss them, you might stand a chance of reaching the victorious position you're constantly falsely claiming. But more likely, you'd actually learn something!

Jardine -
"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. "
a) WTF do you mean?
b) Why would the government be incapable? 'Tis standard procedure nowadays for governments to take externalities into account. Granted they're not perfect at it, but it's a lot better than nothing. And democracy, which is supposed to give everyone an equal say, makes governments far more representative than markets where say is proportional to money.
c) Whether the money costs exceed the money benefits varies according to the particular good or service – you’re just ASSUMING that I'm assuming it again.

"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. "
Actually what was at issue was "that government can do some things more efficiently.

NB I never meant to imply that the Do Nothing option was a "prevent anything being done" option.

As for the socialist incentive problem, I think that's a red herring – very little of the work in the private sector is done by the owners, especially in big business.
The economic calculation problem is based on a false assumption of coercion. As I am not advocating coercion, it is irrelevant.