The article is a necessarily not very detailed summary of the book. For this reason the various arguments may seem superficial. More detailed analysis is required to gain a better perspective. Regarding taxes, the main focus of business is on profit. Profit can be maximised by minimising tax as a cost. A level playing field will result in a shift in that profit aim in a direction towards what better benefits the nations economy and away from that which is directed by the tax regime. Also research by Dr Caragata's team on the optimum tax rate is mentioned. Most of the critisisms of the article are based on it's simplicity. All I can suggest is that people do their own research, look at the book (sounds like I am sprucking the book) and look at the references.

Addressing global socio-economic-risk issues by narrow solutions based on “rational” economic, government structure, planning, energy factors are premature when a society is not trying to envisage and reach an “accepted” view of the sort of society it wishes to pursue.
Society is “complex” – there are constraints, and diverse ideologies.

In the book that in late career “I am not writing” (but should be), starting from my initial background in mathematics, maturing to the field of “complexity” and its management, I am seeking to distil the essential features of a sustainable, continuously advancing society. My proposals are supported by reading in sciences technology, law, economics, psychology, philosophy, law, current affairs.

In my view, “a sustainable, continuously advancing society”, to succeed must ultimately embrace many, diverse solutions in which innovation is a part (but in which other outlooks and fine ideologies are understood). Eric's paper suggests a more restricted model (depending of course how his article is read).

Boiled down, my proposal is that, to prosper, the society will be one that prizes four essential characteristics - like the four legs of a table they need to be “even”, adjusted to the (ever changing) terrain, if the table is to be kept stable. They are, interdependently:

1. Individual freedom& - e.g. endeavour, expression, association – providing maximum scope for innovation, criticisms, analysis, philosophising,
2. Informed engagement – without which the people can be easily misled,
3. Responsibility to others – without which poverty and loss of opportunity will destroy social cohesion,
4. Reverence/respect for what is “good” – without which vision, the lessons of history, and human ideals will be discouraged

None of the four legs should dominate. The fourth however gives some difficulty - the "good” should encompass what can be appreciated universally, as part of our common humanity, pursuing what is beautiful and uplifting, even beyond what we can know or experience - thereby pursuing what is “overwhelmingly and profoundly awesome or sublime - it includes art in its many forms, love, natural beauty, personal virtues, open and mutually supporting community.