Look I do appreciate the fact that you are in earnest, and that you recognise that circularity would invalidate your argument, and believe it is not circular.

For my part, I am prepared to accept that governmental provision of service could be better in given circumstances, if it could be demonstrated in some way that avoided logical fallacy. However I can’t seem to find any argument for it that, when followed up, does not originally assume it.

Can you see that any question of what the tax base or tax rate should be, presupposes that government would be better at spending the money, by which we mean not spending it per se, but getting better results?

Aidan
Can you see that any question of what the tax base or tax rate should be, presupposes that government would be better at spending the money, by which we mean not spending it per se, but getting better results?