Yes, “direct action, such as occupations and pickets,” is just what we need – a return to the uncivilised violence of the 1970s campus. The arrogance and hypocrisy are astounding!

Perhaps it is about time to have universities close their gates.

Young adults are told: "If you want to be independent then leave home and stop relying on Dad's money", yet the author wants to be both independent and unaccountable, yet to keep grabbing our stolen money.

When money is grabbed from ordinary people in the form of taxes, they are forced to work longer and have less time left to educate themselves and enjoy those freedoms of leisure and independence as the author and his colleagues do. Their health also suffers as a result, so they die younger in order to allow the professors to live longer.

The special privileges of universities raise the demands for formal qualifications in nearly every occupation, forcing more people to waste years of their life in order to obtain a piece of paper. Meanwhile others are paying to feed, clothe and house them, but that doesn't concern the author whose relaxed job is secure for the rest of his life.

Sometimes, I'm inclined to start putting together 'An Idiot's Guide to Useful Idiots'.

It would have to have Chapters on:

* the Gramscian underpinnings of modern Nihilism;

* Tearing down the foundations of modern civil society [around ten chapters];

* how to oppose democracies as open societies;

* the primary task of occupying key positions in higher education and the media;

* befriending anybody else who may seek the destruction of modern democratic society: 'the enemy of my enemy is my bestie';

* following on that last point, how to denigrate equality, freedom of speech, and human rights, in support of one's besties;

* how to distort realities;

* how to ignore realities that can't be denied.

Etc., etc.

Still thinking about it. Suggestions welcome :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

To add to the critical chorus and as other writers have suggested, Mark Beljac wants to be paid by the public but does not want to be accountable in any way. But to address the point about a degree in literature being of any use.. actually those graduates usually become high-powered salesman or consultants, if they don't become teachers. But they make a personal choice when they take such degrees - follow what they love and hopefully do much better at uni, or take something that might have more commercial value for the $5,000?? or so a year in HECS (which they now call something different). Degrees in literature, or law, incidentally, cost the public far less than degrees in medicine or science..

Some appreciation of this trade-off is now shaping public policy, but by labeling the shift as neo-liberal Beljac is saying far more about his own hard-left beliefs than he is saying about trends in the university sector..

Seems like a well informed and accurate assessment of the situation to me.
Henry Giroux covers the same theme, and much more too, in his various books and essays. He also connects all of the dots to the wider "culture" at large - or at least what is left of what used to be called culture.
His most recent online essay titled Beyond Dystopian Visions in the Age of Neoliberal (neo-psychotic) Authoritarianism connects all of the dots. Although it is very much about the situation in the USA it does have relevance to the situation that is developing here in the land of Oz and in the UK too.

But of course the purpose of the "universities" was always to serve the power and privileges of the ruling elites. C Wright Mills covered this theme in his book The Ruling Elites, and in his work altogether.

Location location...Australia has chosen NOT to support its communities with free tertiary education, but to turn over the university sector to a dogs breakfast for profit making.

The most useful purpose of universities, is fast becoming a predominance of enclaves of wealthy foreigners, grooming themselves to snap up local jobs, and to set up a base into which family reunions quickly fill immigration voids.

Universities are now a major preserve of the rich, to rip off a system for a personal gain not available in a home country.

On the other hand, Germany may have bitten off more than it can chew, by offering free university education "come one, come all" : And, ALL are coming from the Middle East; any wonder!

Australia has an urgent need to redesign itself on this level, or risk the same social dislocation both ends of the higher education rainbow, appear to be offering as reward!

I was a mature-aged student in the late seventies, and loosely associated with one or two members of a communist student group - I was a sort of arm's-length communist.

At the time, Hans Eysenk was due to come out from the UK to Australia to give talks on the heritability of IQ. I asked one of my communist friends what they should do about his visit, thinking - being quite naïve, especially for somebody of mature age - that he might suggest that, armed with superior knowledge, he might suggest that Eysenck (and by extension, Jensen and Burt) be defeated in robust and open debate. No. He quickly suggested "Smash him !"

So, to the chapters in my draft 'Idiot's Guide to Useful Idiots', I should add another one:

* where possible, use violence: violence cleanses, it purifies, it purges. Discussion and debate are for pussies. Even the Nazis knew all that.

Your suggestions gratefully accepted.

Joe

Loudmouth, add Daffy Duck to your list of useful idiots along with anyone who votes for the major mistakes parties.

The author fails to convince me of a need for protest at universities as proposed, as a right.
In fact, my reasoning tells me that what is actually wrong with protesting, and from where the protesting movements are initiated, says much more about the protester than his cause.
Universities have only ever assisted the well off, to maintain the status quo In their position of authority.(elitism).

Gough Whitlams veiled attempt to appear egalitarian by offering fee-free tertiary education, was actually a farce in disguise!
There is no evidence that free university education will improve the lot of the disenfranchised uneducated masses.

It is actually union movement protest, which achieved the greatest tangible improvements to the majority of society, not university protests.
Unfortunately the union movement has been violated by the input of the tertiary educated into its ranks. This move alone has relegated the successful nature of this movement, to a state of irrelevance.

The Humanities and Social Sciences haven't been affected by the corporatism the author speaks of. Generally, there are two streams of thought taught in the Humanities - Marxism and Foucauldianism. Both are anti-capitalist, anti-Western, anti-Christian and anti-conservatism. Perhaps if the author directed his critique toward the business departments he would have a point.

The Humanities and Social Sciences have only themselves to blame for their irrelevance. Their perpetual critique of anything to do with Western culture does not resonate with those who fund it: the tax payers. Perhaps if conservative and libertarian views (there is some liberalism taught in the academe, I'll admit that) were taught at the same volume as leftist ones, there may not be the backlash or current irrelevance of the Humanities and Social Sciences.

The article though, with its opening paragraph, seeks to highlight the ability of the market to manipulate minds; then proceeds to exemplify the point, using universities as its model. This is a very narrow focus!

Blind Freddy from a long distance, can see the problems associated with the University structure operating as it is.
Universities are not, and never were built on the base of egalitarianism. They were always a place in the world designed and structured for outcomes of privilege for the privileged!

It is somewhat tongue in cheek to level criticism against the Humanities (poster above), as rebels to the cause of elitism, when the Humanities actually attract the poorer "class" of student using market forces of price to attract them; and signed off with a ho hum, such as, maybe the cancer of egalitarianism is spreading (God forbid), through academe. Jesus, what arrogance

Hi Dan,

I'm not so sure that universities, for all their faults, are elitist these days. I've been collecting data on Indigenous student and graduate numbers for around twenty five years (all on a Database, on my web-site: www.firstsources.info) and it would appear that the equivalent of one and a half young-adult age-groups are currently enrolled: more than sixteen thousand enrolments, as compared to 10,500-11,000 24- or 25-year-olds across the country.

Around forty thousand have graduated by the way - the equivalent of nearly four age-groups. Two-thirds female, overwhelmingly mainstream and urban.

Since 2007, Indigenous commencements in Bachelor-level courses has doubled, i.e. increasing around 7 % p.a., to about 4,800 - the equivalent of about 45 % of a mid-twenties age-group. But not all of those were strictly first-time commencements: some may be on their second degree, some are returning to study, some are switching courses, or course codes, or campuses. But apart from those, the equivalent of around 33-35 % of young Indigenous people are starting university courses for the first time these days.

i.e. from now on, a third of the Indigenous population are enrolling, or will enrol, at some point in their lives, at university. 20 % will go on to post-graduate study, and around a third or more of those will go onto Master's or Ph.D. study. Some may even do genuine research. The vast majority of graduates inter-marry with non-Indigenous colleagues, social companions - not with welfare recipients. They will work in cities. What impact might that make on Indigenous society as whole ?

From Commonwealth Education Department records [cf. https://www.education.gov.au/student-data], it seems that around 120,000 Indigenous people have been, or are currently, enrolled at universities since 1980. About one in every eight Indigenous adults is a graduate and that will rise to one in six in ten years, when there are around 70,000 graduates - you know, enough to nearly fill the MCG.

Dan, you can call that elitist, but it sure beats the one in every hundred white Australians ever enrolled at universities of sixty years ago. Now THAT was elitism.

Cheers,

Joe

Let's establish the meaning of the word..(Wikipedia )

Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality or worth, high intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes—are those whose influence or authority is greater than that of others; whose views on a matter are to be taken more seriously or carry more weight; whose views or actions are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities, or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.[1]

In answer to your obvious joy at the contrived advancement of aboriginal education, congratulations on your achievement...however, picking a select group from the broader society, and legging them up, is an elitist activity in itself.

And the results of that are evident in the arrogance of Adam Goodes ... the resulting discord is obvious!

Hi Dan,

"Mass tertiary education", rather than elite tertiary education, is variously defined as anything from 15 % to 35 % of an age-group enrolling at university. I've been fascinated with the possibility of MTE for twenty five years, and it certainly seems to have occurred in the case of Indigenous people. Urban, Indigenous people, and predominantly female, urban, Indigenous people. What the welfare-oriented want to do with their lives is up to them.

As for Adam Goodes, no, he is not a university graduate BUT one of the blokes up in the Flinders featured on Goodes' WDYTYA last Tuesday night is a qualified teacher. As it happens, Goodes' gr-gr-gr-grandmother, Elizabeth Angie, was a sister of my wife's gr-gr-grandmother, Reba, so he should have called her auntie. The Angie father was Chinese, presumably Ang Hi. There were quite a few Chinese, African, West Indian, African-American, Mauritian and Afghan fathers of Aboriginal children, often forming stable family units.

On that SBS program, much was made of a rumour that one early ancestor was the child of Sir Walter Hughes, founder of the Moonta Mines and benefactor of the Adelaide University and the Point Pearce Mission. An amazing proportion of Aboriginal people believe they are descended from royalty, perhaps from Queen Victoria herself (and so are the rightful heirs to the British Crown). So it may be worthwhile to point out that Tommy Sansbury, Goodes' gr-gr-gr-gr-grandfather, may have been the shepherd who first found copper on Hughes' land, and was thereafter provide for quite generously, as was his son. It didn't mean that Hughes was the father of any Aboriginal children, however. But it's amazing how quick people are to jump to that conclusion. Goodes' comment, that for Hughes, it was good enough to sleep with Aboriginal women but not to acknowledge their children, was not only incredibly ungrateful but also really quite ignorant.

Another thing: Goodes' maternal grandmother, Daphne Varcoe, was the grandchild of a woman from the West Coast, Jenny (?) and a man from Point McLeay, Benjamin Varcoe. So he had a much richer ancestry than he realised.

Joe

A government funded university is not "autonomous" or "free of external constraint" you fool.

The fact that you are an academic, and have made such a fundamental and obvious mistake that JUST HAPPENS to favour government power over intellectuals, just goes to prove that government funding of universities should be abolished, not defended.

Everything the author says is back the front. If people won't voluntarily pay for the products of a university, there's no reason why it should exist at all. What kind of priviligentsia do you think you are? Other people are not just footstools for you to climb up on!

If the State funds it, far from being some kind of hierarchy-free zone of free and free and critical thought, it will produce intellectually docile drones like the author - statists to the marrow, brainwashed into believing the State is some kind of benevolent institution, viscerally opposed to individual freedom and private property, and completlely unable to bring any critical thinking to bear on the subject.

The State, being based in a legal monopoly of violence, has a permanent ongoing need for legitimation; unlike corporations whose reveneu is from *voluntary* sources. That is why it has always formed a close alliance with the intellectual class, who sell services the market value of which is generally low, precisely because no-one voluntarily pays for them.

This provides an opportunity for the intellectual class to enrich themselves at the expense of society, by getting jobs preaching that the State can do no wrong, that the State is a moral and economic superbeing that represents society better than society represents itself - just as the author has done!

There is no basis in fact or reason for the author's assumption that market forces represent an "attack" on anyone. He has precisely reversed the true position, which is that all state action other than defending individual liberty and private property is based on the State's legal monopoly of aggressive violence and fraud, and is an attack on the public.

Mark, you have completely failed to give any reason why any individual or group should have the legal privilege of having the propagation of their political ideology paid for under compulsion at public expense.

All you are doing is arguing that your snout should be deeper in the trough. Ideological hegemony indeed. You are a member of the class who live by compulsion and the propagation of ideological nonsense, at the expense of the class who actually work for a living, doing things that people voluntarily pay for. In short, you are a hegemon of the ruling parasite class, and here you are preaching for more open-ended government handouts and privileges for pet political favourites.

In any event, you perform a self-contradiction by writing the article, since according to you, all the issues should be solved by government force and threats, and will admit no standard of reason that could ever falsify your argument.

So it's you who are advocating that the State should physically attack people who disagree and who refuse to submit and obey and pay for your privileges.

Aren't you? You're opposed to universities being funded voluntarily, that's the whole point of your argument, you support the use of violence to shore up the ruling class. Admit it, or renounce your entire thesis.

Daffy Duck

"Although it is very much about the situation in the USA it does have relevance to the situation that is developing here in the land of Oz and in the UK too."

If you don't distinguish, in a discussion of political economy, between the public and private control of the means of production, you will operate only at the level of a gibbering idiot.

How can you criticise authoritarianism, when you and the author stand for NOTHING BUT the funding and control of universities on the basis of political authority? Can't you see the self-contradiction that is staring you in the face?

"But of course the purpose of the "universities" was always to serve the power and privileges of the ruling elites."

The author is arguing that these tendenceis should be INCREASED and ENTRENCHED He is arguing that there should be NO SCOPE for voluntary transactions or individual freedom, but what is based on political authority to serve the power and privileges of the ruling elites, of which he is a prime example.

You are completely confused if you support him. To be consistent with what you (and he) *think* you are supporting, you should be opposing the political control of universities which he hypocritically supports.

The business model of universities, is what the author is criticising here. Aboriginals are a milking cow to that model! So too are foreign fee paying students.
Slash and burn economics attributed to the neoliberal ethic, demoralise workers and undermine conditions.
What the author suggests is revolt. An unlikely event more than ever. Debt stressed students make for compliancy.

The whole of social welfare is run on this model also. So too are hospitals, which are rundown ramshackle institutions of disease, run on an overworked skeleton staff of dedicated professionals.
One surgeon I spoke with recently at 10pm, had been in theatre since 6am. That is a sixteen hour day.

There needs to be a protest to this madness of inefficiency which undermines due process of care on all levels of society. Neoliberalism is a failure, as the author implies!

diver dan

You are completely confused abuot what you're talking about.

You are IN FAVOUR OF authoritarianism, remember? That's what the argument is about.

You're OPPOSED TO individual freedom and private property deciding the resource-uses in issue. Remember? Have the intellectual honesty and decency to admit it, to youself and others.

The author is not criticising the "business model", as if he would accept any other business model that comprises voluntary payment.

He wants ONLY compulsion-based control based ONLY on POLITICAL AUTHORITY. He explicitly rejects ANY operation of individual freedom or private property as part of the so-called funding "business model".

Therefore it's not a business model at all; it's an anti-business model. Just ask Mark. He'll be the first to agree. Won't you Mark?Go ahead. Admit it.

So stop talking confused self-contradictory nonsense.

Your idea that socialism increases the physical productivity of society has no basis in fact or reason. You are just gibbering slogans.

Not just hospitals, but ANY service, cannot be made more efficient, by forcibly removing the possibility of economic calculation, and forcibly severing the service provided, from any voluntary connection to the evaluations of its payers and consumers.

Your economic theories (which you're not even aware of) were completely demolished and exploded IN THE 1870s. You have nothing.

If your and Mark's assumptions were correct, full communism would have been, and would be, a wonderful paradise of plenty and freedom.

You and Mark both have learnt nothing from either theory or practice in the last 100 years, and need to pull your heads out from where the sun don't shine and stop admiring the fragrance therein.

Stop thinking you're radical and cool when all you are is confused shills for the ruling parasite class.

Mark, if I am wrong, then stipulate the objective criterion that delimits what the state should be funding or controlling, and if you can't then make no reply but only an admission that you can't do it.

FMD JKJ and you reckon I'm shrill....don't think so!
It amazes me how many commo's jump ship when their lot improves. At the least, this author stayed on board, kudos to him!

You must be blind Freddy's brother are you. Try slumming it, and visit your local hospital; better write a farewell note if your attending emergency.
Take on a student debt, then line up for a housing loan!
Go unemployed and become a slave to the volunteer industry of NGO's
I think your one of the over privileged this author highlits in his protest to our management society.... No idea of the real pain, and don't want any!

Hi Dan,

So ..... Indigenous people watch universities' business models closely, and dance to whatever tune they play ? 'Stay away', they are told, and they stay away for decades. 'Come in big numbers, like milk cows,' they are told, and lo ! they come.

Ever tried herding cats ?

So the Indigenous graduate numbers have risen from a few hundred in 1980 to forty thousand by the end of this year. A hundred thousand by 2032 - one in every four women, one in every seven men - that's my prediction.

Yes, indeed: from little things, big things grow.

Cheers,

Joe

I don't believe aboriginals were ever "told" to stay away from university loudmouth.
The reason they eventually attended was due to special privileges afforded them, in preference to other members of society.
Thus they fall into the bracket of the elite, in the true sense of the word.
If you want a fair world, then make the offers even, why should university entry, be offered to one group in society more than any other group?
Why have the aboriginal poor been any different to other poor members of society, excluded from tertiary education by lack of opportunity, any more than another poor group.

Here is an example. We have in this example, a land holder who employs a farm hand and his family.
The farm hand lives in workman's cottage on the farm. The same school bus runs past the common gate to the property. Only difference between the farmhands children and the landholders children is, the landholders children are missing from the gate.
They are attending, by means of Government subsidy, a comfortable boarding school in the city which afford those children of the landholder, a rounded education resplendent with tertiary level entrance qualifications.The same Government subsidy is not applicable to the worker. The same educational outcomes are also denied to the workers children!

Since when have poor aboriginal children been denied entry into a public school system in recent times...never. Therefore, aboriginal children are offered the same privileges afforded all children. Sadly, that offer goes mostly unappreciated!
But now different. The same poor, (mostly white) children are watching another group, hand selected, being offered exclusive passage to greater opportunities!

Another reason for booing Adam Goodes, if your a Collingwood supporter!
I don't really care how you wish to paint the picture, it is not acceptable to discriminate!

Hi Dan,

'Special privileges' ? Aboriginal Study Grant has always been the same as the standard student financial support, AUSTUDY. In the earlier days, Indigenous students could get two trips home each year, so many TSI students came down to Adelaide to study. If you want to call that 'privilege', feel free.

All of that came after some generations of quite blatant discrimination, i.e. Indigenous people not allowed to stay in urban arras after 5 p.m. - a rule still in place until about 1960 in most capital cities. Of course, there were exceptions, as long as people were very well-behaved, but it was the general rule. So Indigenous people were at least one or two generations behind even the white working-class in that regard.

And given that around half of the Indigenous population are currently bogged down in the lifelong-welfare culture, the rest haven't done too bad, by their own efforts.

You write of school buses: my wife was the eldest in an Aboriginal family of ten kids; they lived right on the edge of a country town, just inside the town boundaries, between the cemetery and the tip, so they couldn't get the school bus, which for the local farming kids. The school was way out on the other side of town, a mile and a half away. So tell me about privilege.

But as you say,

"I don't really care how you wish to paint the picture, it is not acceptable to discriminate!"

Cheers,

Joe

Depends entirely on your interpretation of "discriminate". Apparently we differ on the meaning in this instance!

But, since when did aboriginals really "want" to assimilate? There is a big difference between wanting to assimilate, and being prevented from assimilating!

I still believe aboriginals are being used-up again for political purposes. Their issues continue to be a hot potato. I'm sure you mean well! I respect you for that!

In keeping with the thread, what are your thoughts on the subject matter of neoliberal management of public institutions per se?

Dan,

Oy. Try to understand that Aboriginal people do whatever the hell they like, within constraints: they certainly, in my experience, don't tail along behind what somebody else tells them to do. That really would be like trying to herd cats.

So some choose to go to uni, some choose to wallow in lifelong welfare. I have relations in marriage who have done one or the other.

As for 'neoliberal' whatever, this seems to be a boo-word for whatever societies find that they need to do, but which may disadvantage some rent-seeker or other. If we are currently living under neoliberal conditions, or under some sort of neoliberal government, I don't have any particular problem with it, I've lived through worse.

As for universities, good luck to managements who try to buck the 'loose coupling' that Karl Wieck wrote about in universities. Check it out on Google :)

Joe

Marko Beljac in "#Occupy the university" (Online Opinion, 5 November 2015) suggests that "In a free society university life must necessarily be autonomous and self managed" but "... the university essentially becomes a private enterprise supplying graduates to other corporations. The courses universities provide, the manner they are delivered, and the research that they do, necessarily will cater to the interests and concerns of the corporate sector. ...".

Universities do cater to the vocational needs of their students, which I suggest is not all together a bad thing. There should be scope for non-vocational studies, but someone has to be willing to pay for these. If the students are not willing to pay, because such studies will not get them a job, and the state will not pay, because their is no perceived social benefit, then who will pay?

Calls for a non-corporate approach to universities, such as that by Beljac, are not new. These are documented in Hannah Forsyth's "A History of the Modern Australian University".

A radical dawn in the corporatization of Australian universities happened, almost unnoticed, in July 2012, when Torrens University Australia was admitted to the Australian National Register of higher education providers as an "Australian University" and authorized to self-accredit courses. Torrens is part of the private for-profit, Laureate International Universities, which provides education online to 800,000 students around the world.

Professor Jim Barber, while UNE Vice-Chancellor, advocated changes to government regulations to allow on-line universities to be established in Australia. He failed in this, however Laureate's example with Torrens shows it is possible to establish a new institution with a different way of working. This approach could be applied for new non-government, not-for-profit higher eduction institutions which have social goals.

Links and more at: http://blog.highereducationwhisperer.com/2015/11/not-for-profit-private-australian.html

diver dan

Okay, so we are agreed that you are arguing IN FAVOUR OF
1. authoritarianism
2. the powerful exploiting the weak and powerless
3. making society poorer i.e. socialism.

Mark

Can you see that, in a discussion of a political economy, if a professional intellectual looks on a government monopoly, or system of compulsory government price control, and considers that "unregulated capitalism", "unrestrained capitalism", "unbridled capitalism" or such like, that person is either
a) disqualifyingly ignorant and stupid, or
b) deliberately dishonest?

Can you see that? Yes or no?

Can you see that the case is worse when he is government-funded and JUST HAPPENS to be arguing for an increase in government power?

What we would expect from government funding of universities, far from being free and critical thought, is a class of deprofessional arse-lickers to the State, incapable of questioning authority or critical thinking as concerns the State.

Notice how you provided no definition of the State, even while assuming without reason, that no even you agree with, that it is a moral and economic super-being? And there's that strange coincidence again, isn't there, you just happen to be a government-funded intellectual?

1. What is your definition of the State?
2. What is your reason for saying that universities should be government-funded?
3. What is your reason for saying that universities should be autonomous of government?

Go ahead. Let the self-contradictions, circularities, double standards, garbled illogic and factual absurdities roll.

What is your answer to my challenge and my three questions please?

Mark

1. What is your definition of the State?
2. What is your reason for saying that universities should be government-funded?
3. What is your reason for saying that universities should be autonomous of government?

You see, whenever anyone makes any statement about human action under conditions of scarcity, they are employing economic theory. Since at least time, space, work, capital and money are always scarce, therefore any statement about human action, and therefore human society or political economy, involves economic theory.

As you would be the first to agree, not all economic theory is true, is it?

Thus there is a need for a way to know whether economic theory is true or not. As you would also agree, this task is complicated by the fact of the vested interests in the persons and groups commenting on it.

The problem cannot be solved by the standard left-wing method of squarking about ideology. The question is whether or not an economic theory is true or false, not whether or not it's ideology.

At a minimum, an economic theory must comply with the principles of logic, and must not be inconsistent with observed fact. This doubly disqualifies your economic theory, or rather unarticulated assumptions.

Go ahead. Answer my questions that you have so far been too gutless and evasive to answer, and I will prove it to you and your readers.

Your entire argument against liberty and property is false, many times over. You are just a shill for the parasite ruling class.

Hi Marko,

Enjoyed your article; I've written a few in a similar vein in the last few years, since becoming a student at a bottom-tier university. (I was also a Wobbly for many years, and only really let my membership lapse because I moved from Sydney to regional Australia, and keeping my dues up to date when not in regular contact with Ray & chums was more than my severely limited organisational skills could manage.)

For a time I ran a website (http://www.uniadversity.org) which was actually the idea of Richard Hil (author of 'Whackademia' and 'Selling Students Short', which I highly recommend). I quickly made it way too ambitious, and found I had to mothball it due to information overload. I'd like to resurrect it, but need some more editors to help. If you'd be interested in lending a hand, contact me via http://mjd.id.au/contact

Cheers,
Matthew.

Aidan

"Secondly as you were whinging about the lack of definitions in the article when it included links to a paper that contained them, your "absent authority" excuse is invalid IMO."

Fine.

Here's the complete disproof of your argument, and to your own standards:
https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Man,%20Economy,%20and%20State,%20with%20Power%20and%20Market_2.pdf