mike-servethepeople,
I tried the link you suggested, but it appears faulty. Any suggestions?

odo,
Are you able to comment on
"The dark side of private-public partnerships",
or are you limited to commenting on other posters?

I just tried it from the earlier comments page and got straight to it. If it doesn't work, try http://vanguard.net.au/2008/index.php and click on the graphic at the bottom of the page.

Thanks to Rowan and Susan P. My pedanticism was mainly because I thought the typos detracted from an otherwise very good article. I'm one of those dinosaurs to whom things like spelling, grammar and good governance still matter, I guess.

Odo - you quack me up. Do you have an opinion on the article at all, or about the important issues it raises?

"Though all actions of government are a form of manipulation this statement is far too generalised to be usable. The aspect of enforcement is also too generalised."

No it's not. Government gets all its revenue by the use of violence or the threat of violence. Taxation is a compulsory impost and by law confers no right to any specific service. Compulsory means that if you don't pay it, a group of armed men will physically seize you, beat you into submission if necessary, and lock you up in a cage.

As to government's revenue from inflating the money supply, or from borrowing, both of these depend on its prior monopoly of the use of violence or threats.

If this is out of date, ie not reality-based, let's abolish the enforcement underlying taxation and see what happens to government revenues, shall we?

Interesting to speculate what an improvement would result from requiring the *real* consent of the governed.

"The use of suggestion through advertisement is an obvious way governments attempt to change behaviour without resorting to enforcement (the anti-smoking campaigns being a prime example of this)."

That is a typical example of ignoring the enforcement there is. When government runs anti-smoking campaigns, they get the funds by threatening to throw people in prison if they don't submit to having their property confiscated. That is where the force is involved, not in the advertisements.

As there is no law - legislative or regulatory - against smoking, there is no enforceable command not to smoke. The enforceable command is to pay money as a precondition of smoking.

"... two other policy actions being neutral or positive can not be based on this."

You haven't said what those two other policy actions are. But I repeat *all* revenue of government depends on its monopoly of the legal use of force or threats, and therefore all government action does too - *whether or not a people subjected to 10 years compulsory state indoctrination fail to recognise the fact and mistakenly think they are talking about consensual decision-making.*

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/water-policy-delivers-scary-possibilities-20090624-cwpw.html?page=-1

The above link is too an article about water and the P & P.

"Veolia now delivers Adelaide's water supply. According to Christopher Sheil, a University of NSW historian, in an interview with the Washington-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists: "When a corporation wins a highly unpopular contract over public goods like water, it gets the privatising government by the balls."

CJMorgan / Sir Vivor. No, and I didn't realise you two had suddenly become the poster's focus and content police, thanks for informing me.

I sure hope neither of you has ever just clipped and posted out of someone else's post, as a comment or to denigrate the poster, that would be truely hypocritical in light of your current outrage, wouldn't it?

"Let him who is without fault cast the first stove." What? Really, the first stove? Is that a quote from some special version of the Bible?

You quack me up!