Amanda, in case you haven't noticed, information is now available as never before. The idea that information concerning young people most needs a government department to make it available to them is nonsense.

Has it ever occurred to you that when a government runs up an enormous debt that this actually has economic consequences for real people in the real world? Has it ever occurred to you that it may make young people's lives harder? Or do you just think of wealth as a magic lamp and the government as the only genie that can rub it?

Perhaps after the current government has finished cleaning up the mess and chaos and economic destruction of young people's lives left by the last Labor government, could it then start running up debt to pay for "services" cultivating vested interests in government, providing information at 10,000 times the cost, that young people can access on their smartphones for free if they want to?

Better still, perhaps you could consider a career in the productive sector? That way, you could actually contribute a small part of the wealth required, instead of just consuming more of it in publishing self-interested nonsense?

Jardine, there's a ot of information out there, but good reliable information isn't always easy to get despite Google! And considering the importance of such information, I'd expect government involvement to be a good investment.

Has it ever occurred to you that government deficits have positive consequences for people in the real world, and surpluses negative consequences? Has it ever occurred to you that lack of government spending may make young people's lives harder, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas?

What will it take for you to recognise that the public sector is capable of productive activity?

I have to agree and I think this topic goes beyond the Fed Govt saving a few pennies right now. I compare Australia directly to a country like Swizerland, where career guidance is compulsory and special centres are run to give students the utmost chance to find out what they have an aptitude for and what is actually available as a career.

How many resources are wasted in this country, because people study one thing, only to find it is not for them. They start an apprenticeship and then drop out. They hate their job. etc.

It is extremely difficult for a 16-17 year old to clearly think about these things, without some kind of guidance. There are already plenty of subjects which could be cut back (like religion) and replaced with career guidance, which is a critical decision in all our lives.

"What will it take for you to recognise that the public sector is capable of productive activity?"

Some kind of rational criterion that doesn't consist of assuming it in the first place. But you've already completely lost this argument, remember? According to your theory you either must assert that all productive activity should be in government hands, because you assume it's more beneficial than what would otherwise obtain; but as soon as you resile from that logical consequences of your own belief system, and as soon as you try to specify a criterion for justifying your own interventions, you just go round and round and round chasing your own tail and contradicting yourself?

So why do you pretend that you are interested in discussing it when you don't care that what you're saying is untrue?

But if you do, then how do you work out whether the amount spent on career counselling is too much, too little, or just the right amount, in terms of the subjective evaluations of either the people forced to pay for it, or for its intended beneficiaries. How do you know the money wouldn't be better spent on something else?

And so you are reduced to denying that laws are enforced, and then denying that you deny it, like you did last time; and pretending that governmental provision makes the problems of scarcity of resources magically disappear.

It would save a lot of time if you just did the honest thing and say "I don't know" now.

Got that rational criterion there yet?

Oh yes, Jardine, I remember now: if I dared to assume that people don't magically lose their abilities when their employer happens to be the government, you accused me of "circularity" or "assuming what's in issue" and tell me I've lost the argument. By claiming victory you were able to cling on to your ludicrous assumptions and keep yourself in perpetual ignorance.

But why do you want to be in perpetual ignorance? Try challenging your own assumptions! And if you think you can still reach the same conclusion, try posting your reasoning and I'll identify some of the logical flaws in it.

The reason that I denied that I denied laws were enforced is that your accusation was untrue. What i said was that I opposed the police using violence to enforce the laws except in the defence of themselves or others. I later clarified that to emphasise that this didn't extend to opposition to arresting suspects.

As for career counselling, I don't know if the government is currently spending too much or too little on it. But I think it's pretty clear that if it were scrapped altogether, as Amanda is warning, the answer would then be far too little.