Jardine,
<<"Why don't you?"
There's no use asking me questions, or pretending to engage in a rational discourse, if your thinking is merely circular. >>
Nor me you if yours is completely loopy. But your accusations of circular arguments seem to me to be an attempt to avoid difficult questions like that one.

<<I've neither admitted that my belief in that proposition is circular, nor assumed my conclusion in my premises."
Yes you have. In a prior discussion in which you asserted, and I denied, the possibility of superior efficiency of governmental provision of services in some circumstances, you denied that your argument is circular, but then later admitted that you don't assume the ability to economise doesn't "magically disappear" when we consider governmental action. But the issue was whether government can rationally economise [i.e. work out whether a loss is worth it] in the first place. Therefore you have admitted that you have assumed what is in issue.>>
Firstly, that's a different proposition than that which is being argued now.
Secondly, if that's what I admitted then it must be a typo and I apologise for it. Let me be clear:
I DO assume the ability to economise doesn't "magically disappear" when we consider government action. The work is done by humans, and working for the government doesn't suddenly cause them to lose their skills.
Thirdly, if this assumption was what was at issue, it suggests you hold the quite extraordinary belief that this ability does magically disappear!

Is that what you believe?

If it is, then rather than declaring my argument to be circular so you can bask in the illusory satisfaction that your absurd argument has by your silly standards beaten mine, you could dispute it and give a reason. But I warn you: if you do it that way you might actually learn something.

Jardine (continued)
<<"Now, if you want to debate whether the source of the money determines spending efficiency, you're welcome to do so. I'd quite like to see you try to figure out a credible hypothesis as to how it could."
You're doing it again. You're ASSUMING that the source of the money makes no difference to spending efficiency, when that is what is in issue>>
On the contrary, although that's not currently what's in issue, I'm offering to make that the issue. But if all you're going to do is parrot "that argument is circular" then forget it.

<<a) I've already given you a credible hypothesis, that based in 1. the coercive nature of taxation, and 2. the disconnect between governmental provision and any demonstrated preference of the "consumers". You haven't answered that hypothesis, except by circularly pretending that it doesn't exist>>
How could I, when you made it impossible to continue the conversation in the other thread by redefining "what's in issue" as what I'd just said so you could accuse me of circularity!

If you want to understand my position then I'm quite willing to discuss it more. But like you I'm too lazy to derive every argument from first principles. So there will be conjecture. If you want me to explain my reasons for saying something you disagree with then tell me and I will. But if you pretend it circularises and invalidates my argument, I'm not going to bother to waste my time.
<<b) You’re reversing the onus of proof. You’re the one asserting that government can economise more efficiently in certaion circumstances. Prove it.>>
And you're the one making the extraordinary claim that there are no circumstances under which it can. This medium is designed for two way conversations and I don't intend to explain all aspects of my position while you withhold your own reasoning.

Jardine (continued)
<<"Your accusation that I've no criterion for human rights is an outright lie."
I didn't say you have no criterion, I said you have no rational criterion. >>
You actually made both claims. But even a criterion you dismiss as irrational completely refutes your claim about my political philosophy.

<<The UDHR is merely States deciding that human rights are whatever states say they are: Caesar appealing to Caesar.>>
FALSE. It is a document not a process, and it acknowledges that the rights it lists are human rights even if states contradict them.

<<That's not a rational criterion because according to that theory, if they decided that free ice-cream, or owning slaves, were human rights, all of a sudden they would be human rights.>>
The latter would not be a human right because it would contravene another human right. And anyway the decision's already been made, and it does not include free icecream!

<<But if you deny that, you are still left wanting any criterion for deciding what a human right is, other than "whatever states say it is". So ... what is it?>>
I'm too lazy to derive them from first principles. Start your own thread if you want to argue ultratrivial stuff like that. Meanwhile, accept that you're wrong because the UDHR is a document not a state.

<<Same with the Constitution. We only have limits on government power because of people who DON'T share your circular belief in unlimited power.>>
As I am one of those people who DON'T share that belief in unlimited power, it's not my circular belief, but rather your spherical belief.

<<You say you don't, but when I ask you to explain what rational criterion for limits you have, you don't have any except appeal to the state. So it’s circular.>>
As circular as a parabola! But now you've got me curious as to what criteria for limits you have that fit your definition of "rational"?

Jardine (continued)
<<You say you don't believe in unlimited government power, but believe governmental provision is justified because
a) government can access cheaper finance
b) private owners will be motivated by profit.>>
Being motivated by profit is not itself a bad thing, but it does result in two potential drawbacks: the need to make a profit means that the savings they make are unlikely to all be passed on to the customers, the most profitable outcome isn't always the one that benefits the customers most.

<<But since there is no area of production that this would not justify governmental provision for, therefore it's a creed of unlimited power, unless you can specify the limiting principle, which you can't, because when asked, you keep making it depend on governmental fiat.
On the contrary, there are many areas of production that this would not justify governmental provision for. There are likely to be some where it would NEVER justify governmental provision for, particularly in the artistic and creative fields, for those services which are not capital intensive, and for highly specialized areas where technical expertise spans international borders. But I believe the decisions should be made in context rather than be predetermined.

<<According to your theory, no amount of tax would ever be enough.>>
False. I merely think the tax rate should be determined according to the available opportunities and opportunity costs. Which brings me back to the question you refused to answer:
Why don't you?

The only forms of taxation that should exist are personal income tax and company income tax. The rest are "secret taxes", designed to effect the low paid more than the high income earners. Corporate tax should be designed in a similar way as personal income tax, but using a system based on return on tangible assets as the base rather than the total, as it is for personal income tax.

Many so-called "service" providers set up companies so that their tax rate is much lower than it would be if they admitted they were providing services directly.

The GST was designed to take a higher proportion of the disposable income of the low paid than the high income earners and it hit pensioners even harder.

All taxes should be collected by the State governments and a proportion submitted to the Federal government, designed to finance the role of the federal government in matters that are better served by a national body.

ALCAM,

<<The only forms of taxation that should exist are personal income tax and company income tax. The rest are "secret taxes", designed to effect the low paid more than the high income earners.>>
You haven't thought this through very well – there are plenty of examples such as PRRT (federal) and land tax (state).

<<Corporate tax should be designed in a similar way as personal income tax, but using a system based on return on tangible assets as the base rather than the total, as it is for personal income tax.>>
How and why?

<<All taxes should be collected by the State governments and a proportion submitted to the Federal government, designed to finance the role of the federal government in matters that are better served by a national body.>>
That would be costly to administer effectively and offers no advantage over the Federal government being in charge of tax collection.