Turnrightthenleft (and end up left),

[[[[you're just an economic extremist playing games of semantics]]]]
Calling me an "economic extremist", is simply declaring yourself a socialist who doesn't like non-socialism. From a logic viewpoint, it is called "presuming the premise you purport to prove" aka "question begging", and is thus redundant.

[[[[Effectively, you're calling every economy on the planet socialist.]]]]
That you have derived this (correct) implication, tells us you understand that "pure" does not mean "extreme". That is, you have understood that socialism, once present, cannot be anything other than socialism, no matter how much supposed non-socialism is added to it.

[[[[I'm calling you an extremist, because reasonable people operate within a realistic frame - that is, all things are relative.]]]]
Your "realistic frame" is another instance of question begging.

[[[[So, we have a multitude of economies, some with more market freedom than others.]]]]
Yes we do. And to the extent that they are not free, they are socialist.

[[[[You however, can't engage in this discussion - because government regulation exists, everything's socialist, end of the debate.]]]]
The debate is not over whether all government is socialist by definition, which is a given, but whether such is good.
Socialism is dark and evil. It is abhorent to those who love life, for it presumes autocratic right and sovereignty over other human beings. I have no time at all for socialists of any form. I find them utterly repulsive - they are people who should be ashamed of themselves. Little messiahs running around saving everybody else from their supposed sub-standard selves, and putting them in jail if they refuse to be saved.

Liberty, it's not up to you to define what my individual liberty is, or what liberties I value. Indeed it's not up to you to define it for the 13 million voters in the country. If you're arguing that the liberty to elect a government that will be best placed to ensure our prosperity is maintained and widely enjoyed is the opposite of individual liberty, then you're effectively arguing against democracy. But you go argue with Churchill..."democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried".

And BTW, why are you even using the internet? It was developed by the government, you know. They might be watching you...

Liberty

I am curious. What do you think should be the role of government? How far can its policy interventions go before they become abhorrent and repulsive?

I am fascinated by the fact that you seem to think that if government got out of the way, people would be able to enjoy liberty and individual freedom. I think what is more fundamental is whether people have substantive freedom (as argued by Amartya Sen). People need to have the capabilities to lead the kind of lives they value and government has a key role in facilitating that sort of freedom for individuals.

Furthermore, even if government got out of the way, do you think that it would mean we would have real autonomy? Do you think that government is the only institution that influences the choices we make. We are manipulated by many other entities and their motives are much less noble.

I spoke to a first time voter, a Sudanese/Australian friend. When Ajak arrived in Australia as a refugee he and his friends were so grateful to Howard for accepting African refugees.

Ajak and his friends have since graduated from tertiary institutions. Their political views swung against the government when Immigration Minister Andrews slashed the intake of Africans based on the view of failure to integrate based on cabinet advice that the Minister refused to share with the public under Freedom of Information legislation.

Voting against the Howard government was a special moment for people like Ajak who have never before experienced the joy of empowerment that voting can give people who have never been consulted in the past.

People not happy with John Howard's callous government took a particular delight in seeing him empatically defeated through the ballot box. In war torn Sudan, the only option to change the genocidal military regime was through armed stuggle.

History will record that Howard's government was dispatched by Australian citizens tired of political 'leaders' playing dangerous games of divisiveness, mean spirited policies, dishonesty, tax-payer funded propaganda, pork-barrel inducements, corrupt dealings and so many wasted opportunities to showcase to the world what Austraia is cabable of providing - that is, innovative and bold decisions to tackle global and domestic challenges.

To help expose the systemic damage done to the process of government in Australia over the past 11 years, Rudd should establish a permanent anti-corruption commission with immunity from prosecution given to public servants prepared to tell all in public hearings.

It is essential that accountability and transparency is restored to the way the Australian Government and State Governments do business.

Liberty, I stand by my assertion that you're playing games of semantics, and still view the world through a simplistic struggle against socialism.

I've already said that all economies exist with government intervention - you're defining this intervention as socialist, whereas I was making the point that in order to consider an economy as socialist, it needs to have characteristically higher levels of government control over the economy. You however, reject any level of government intervention as unacceptable, saying it's too socialist.

Semantics.

You say government intervention is evil and must be fought. You say that it's anathema to this concept of Liberty you don't seem to want to articulate, instead preferring to press others into doing it.

I'd suggest that government regulation can't be seen as good or evil, it just has consequences that vary.
Your perception that it is inevitably a form of control over other people essentially hinges on a concept of autonomy that is so encompassing it's unrealistic. I'd argue it's totally impossible, as almost any interaction between human beings is going to inevitably lead to unacceptable control in your ideology.

Your free for all capitalist model can only reject assisting others - everyone and everything is alone.
Truly, this ideal is just as evil as the socialist ideal - nobody can really look after others, and though I know you're already warming up to argue the point that it's unjust to force people to, the fact of the matter is, some government regulation is necessary to prevent predatory capitalism.

You speak of 'evil' in conclusive terms, yet I look around the western world and I see a variety of economies delivering happy, prosperous lives for their citizens, be it the tax-heavy environment in Denmark, or the high quality of life and reassurance of a level of government support we enjoy in Australia.
I can't help but take your 'government is evil' tirades with a little more than a grain of salt, before going on to do something a little more constructive, like consider which aspects I do and don't like of each economic model.

BTW, it also has to be said, after watching Cutting Edge on SBS last night (Frontline's "Cheney's Law"), how anyone can look around the world and conclude that it is the left-leaning/more socialist governments of the world that are a threat to individual liberties is beyond me. Even in Australia under Howard, civil liberties have been eroded somewhat. If socialism is dark and evil, then modern-day conservatism is black and satanic in the extreme.

I do wonder, Liberty, what do you think of a country like the Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal, marijuana is decriminalised, same-sex couples enjoy all the freedoms and privileges of heterosexual couples, and the Heritage foundation describes them as enjoying "high levels of investment freedom, trade freedom, financial freedom, property rights, business freedom, freedom from corruption, and monetary freedom.".

And yet, by Australian standards they are quite "socialist", with a far more generous welfare state, fully subsidised tertiary education, considerably higher taxes (top rate 52%), and government spending over 47% of GDP.