Wing,

To be honest, my own struggle over what should be the most appropriate level of govt intervention is an ongoing issue for thought.

I don't know how long you wish to keep the debate going, but I am yet to be convinced by what you have to say. I do not see Australia's political development in line with your words "that ‘human welfare considerations’ require forced state expropriations is just a modern version of the ancient Roman idea that the public welfare depended on slavery to man the public utilities".

Perhaps your philosophy is beyond my capabilities.

But I am a man of the centre, despite being a supporter of freer trade in general terms.

I have never observed a period of history that justifies your views and ridicules some govt intervention.

As I have sought to demonstrate since 2006, there is a need to balance competitivess and compassion, just as there is to balance individual freedom and state inteference (legitimised by elections and majority opinion after debate).

I don't really know where you get the idea that I believe that we could "achieve a better and fairer outcome by total government control of every aspect of human action".

Balance is always the key word in any sensible political system. There are too many variables that complicate abolsute theories about more or less govt intervention.

Hence, I disagree with your following statements:

"The arguments are that such interventions are not ethical, and they produce unintended negative outcomes that are worse than the original problems they are intended to solve", and

"that most of the disadvantage such welfare state interventions are intended to solve, are themselves the unintended outcomes of prior welfare state interventions, such as unemployment caused by government taxing employers".

My interpretation of history and society leads me to a different conclusion, although I do not believe that govt intervention alone is the perfect solution.

Again, I welcome some evidence from yourself rather than theoretical rhetoric about what should be done to address society's woes, especially social inequality, employment, and even the environment.

Let us take unemployment as an example.

To start with, there is no reason why wagon-wheel makers, or ink-well makers, or record-player manufacturers should be protected for life against unemployment occasioned by new emerging technologies. Some temporary unemployment is the cost of the corresponding benefit that we get from the freedom to choose new and better goods.

But we can expect that policy does not put unnecessary obstacles in the way of people finding new employment as soon as possible.

However, current policy actively causes unemployment on the one hand in hundreds of ways, and then pretends to appear as saviour on the other hand, dispensing funds the taking of which is itself a cause of unemployment!

There can be no pretence that this is justified on the basis of the social good. On the contrary, what is happening is that people are using the state’s monopoly of coercion to plunder their fellow citizens in a complicated welter of handouts and privileges, many or most of which cancel each other out.

If we are really concerned about unemployment, we should stop doing anything to cause it. However by far the single biggest factor causing unemployment is well-intentioned welfare state interventions, imposing costs on employers. Majoritarian decision-making makes it easy for the majority to declare themselves entitled to the property of this minority.

When an employer employs someone, he adds up all the costs, and compares with the expected income: the ‘marginal productivity’ of the worker. If the bottom line is positive, he employs. If not, he doesn’t.

Statutory on-costs are not taken out of profits, as the interventionists fondly imagine, because the capitalists themselves are in competition with each other. The on-costs simply reduce the amount that the worker can take home. In effect, the state orders him to spend his income on tax, on land zoning, etc. But there is no reason to think that politicians, motivated by the legalised grasping of the political system, are in any better position to decide how the worker should spend his income, than the worker is.

Wing,

If you were to take all protection away in Western socities, for example, many industries would be decimated.

Sure, Australia has done fairly well in recent years by dismantling tariff protection, and benefiting from industries where it has some advantage (education, tourism, agriculture and mining).

But our manucnahfing sector would not have a hope if it did not have some protection.

I suppose it comes down to proving whether their is cost benefit in protecting an industry, such as the car industry.

While you may agree with the Productivity Commission that the cost outweighs the benefit, I am inclined to believe that a loss of manufacturing goods is a prime reason why Western countries are in trouble.

Sure most Chinese exports in high-tech industries are foreign owned, which means that rich countries still get benefit, but relying on debt or other industries will inevitably much more pain ahead for Westerners.

Yes, we can develop new industries, but I cannot see it without some protection (renewable energy and so on).

It is the same with welfare. Do you honestly believe that Western govts could have adopted so much economic reform without added social welfare assistance, especially for families. THe Howard govt woud have had no hope of being re-elected three times if it had adopted a minimal govt strategy. This is the nature of Western politics and explains why welfare expenditure has remaine dhigh in most.

We are indeed going to face tough times ahead as we deal with the strenghts and weaknesses of both our arguments, but I welcome any ideas from yourself.

If you don't alrweady, you should write articles to illustrate your points. We certainly need extensive debate.

Whether Western naiton