Dear Aidan,

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

Yes, I oppose the ability of the police to use force (reasonable or otherwise) to enforce the law.

Instead, I support the ability of the police to use force, but only for the protection of those citizens who wish to be protected by the state.

The criterion for using force should be that if it isn't used, then citizens [who wish to be protected by the state] would reasonably likely be in danger - in other words, that actual real people could be otherwise broken, not laws.

"'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. "
The masses don't always have the capital to start with, and individual spending decisions are likely to be based on the interests of the individuals with most money, not the public. And even if I'm able to convince banks to lend me the money, they'd never lend it to me as cheaply as governments can borrow it.

“'[the 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."
Except that I didn't – you failed to consider the extent that it is symbiotic, creating conditions where the voluptuary productive activity can thrive (to a greater extent than under the Do Nothing option) and resulting in less violence.

"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. "
If "capitalism" means "trade" then I'm not against it. As I said before:
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!

byork
Notice how you've just descended into personal argument without even attempting to address the ethical or economic assumptions that you make, and which no-one has been able to defend? But the question whether government can increase economic efficiency does not turn on the *personality* of Jardine K. Jardine. You're missing the very idea of logical thought.

Your beliefs would only be true if there was no such thing as reality, logic or truth - the necessary assumption of your entire economic theory.

NathanJ
If there's no question of coercion, then there's no question of governmental action.

Aidan
Physically attacking, tazering, handcuffing, and shooting people are ALL within the purview of what the law considers reasonable if the subject doesn't submit and obey - that's why police do it and don't get imprisoned for it.

So either you say that that aggressive violence is reasonable, or you say it's not, and either way you've just lost the ethical argument.

You have not even begun to provide any *rational* reason for your claim that government can increase economic efficiency or sustainability. Pointing to alleged defects in capitalism doesn't do it. At best, it's a non sequitur. You have not demonstrated any necessary relation between inputs and outputs, so how can you even think that you've made any rational argument?

All
I have been contending all along that there is no rational basis for socialism.

Notice that Byork, David, Aidan and NathanJ have all just demonstrated what I'm trying to prove, not what they're trying to prove?

JKJ, can you hear the echo arising from your appeal to 'everyone' to accept your superior logic and wisdom? I know this is impossible to you, but you may actually be wrong. You cannot deal with socialists who support liberty. It throws you into confusion and you engage in personal misrepresentation. "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs (and dreams)". Capiche?

Dear Barry,

"You cannot deal with socialists who support liberty"

How else can one deal with those who support liberty only to themselves?

"From each according to their abilities,"

Yea, slave them to their last calorie!

"to each according to their needs (and dreams)"

Off to bed kids, quickly on pillow-duty - whoever dreams first of seeing their rival hanging and drinking their blood, will be the winner!

"Capiche?"

Ja, ich verstehe!
Da, ya ponimayu!

Hi Barry,

The problem is that Utopian theories may well be incompatible with liberty. Liberty implies that people are free to think for themselves, speak and act for themselves, while a ready-made 'perfect' Utopia demands that everybody thinks along certain already-prescribed lines, exceptions to which must regrettably be 'extracted'. After all, the Party knows best.

Has there ever been an exception to this, that a thorough-going socialist system anywhere has allowed freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of speech ? It would so nice if it could happen, but has it - ever ?

Gawd - notice I wrote in that first line " .... may well .... " - You can take the boy out of the Left ....

Joe