That's just nonsense, Peter Hume, and you know it.

>>Pericles The structure of your argument is “The government does it because it’s good, and the proof that it’s good is that the government does it.”<<

That assertion is purely a construct your imagination.

And it is only there because it is a comforting mantra that you have picked up from a Mises pamphlet somewhere. It doesn't actually need to mean anything, since it is simply a blanket sneer that you bring out at every opportunity, in order to divert attention from the real paucity of your thought processes.

Except they are not your thought processes, are they?

Every one is borrowed from a web site somewhere. And we all know which one, don't we.

My argument, in a single sentence, is that communities everywhere are prepared to forego some of their income in the form of taxes, in order to provide services for the general good of that community.

That's it, in its entirety.

Nothing about efficiency. Nothing about being the most cost-effective means of service delivery. Just communities, getting together to determine how they are prepared to help each other.

Feel free to criticize the manner in which services are rendered. Feel free to bitch about their cost. Feel free to question whether they are always directed to where they are most needed. But stop misrepresenting them as some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy that needs an iconoclastic giant of libertarianism such as yourself to lay bare to us poor deluded democrats.

>>Those who talk of human values considered separately from economic values, as Pericles does, are merely displaying their failure to understand the issue.<<

And where, exactly, did I commit this particular crime, Peter Hume?

The problem with you single-issue fanatics is that you spend so much time wallowing in your pet theories, that you refuse to accept that there can possibly be points of view other than yours. Here, you plant a perfectly meretricious label on me, simply in order to... what? Make yourself look smarter?

You really are a piece of work, aren't you.

Right.

Having got that off my chest, let's have a look at the long, dreary chain of words that you have summoned to your aid, Peter Hume.

>>All governments can do is divert scarce resources to less-urgent human wants.<<

Are you prepared to justify that with evidence? Perhaps illustrate it with an example?

Or is it just another slogan you picked up?

>>The impression to the contrary is caused by considering only the benefits that are seen, and ignoring the greater benefits that must have been foregone but are not seen.<<

Those "greater benefits".

Why "must" they have been foregone?

Who decided that they were necessarily "greater", since we'll never know what they were?

In my world, the community made the decision that pre-natal care is of benefit to the people, and that they are prepared, together, to contribute towards it.

If they are made aware of a "greater benefit", then I expect that they will vote for it. That's what communities do. They assess relative benefits that can be provided communally, and vote on them.

True, they don't always get it right. But that is no reason to presume that some alternative process will automatically be of "greater benefit".

Perhaps you could use this example when you respond.

Just so that we can initiate the use of some kind of practical scenarios, rather than a welter of Austrian School propaganda.

>>...in voluntary transactions, both parties benefit – otherwise they wouldn’t do it. Value is created: a win-win.<<

Community decisions - such as the provision of a bus service for the elderly - have value. Just not a financial value to a disinterested party. But to the community, who have provided the funds through taxation, the service does have value. Win-win. Community and old folk.

>>in all coerced transactions, including taxation, the stronger takes from the weaker without his consent, and value is destroyed: a win-lose<<

You see, there's your Achilles heel. Consent has in fact been given, by the community.

A distinct case of "economic values considered separately from human values"

Now, where have I heard that phrase before?

Your unsupported assertions/slogans just go on, and on, Peter Hume.

>>Government interventions actively consume capital on a massive scale, force the poorest into unemployment, and cause or worsen social problems.<<

Please provide practical, real examples - not just cut-and-paste hypothesis from the Mises website - where government intervention has created unemployment, and created or worsened social problems.

You think in terms of "government interventions" being conducted by some kind of deus ex machina. A fairy godmother, lowered onto the stage to spread largesse like confetti.

I think in terms of "government interventions" as being programmes that we, the people, have at some point had a say in determining, and have in doing so volunteered part of our hard-earned crust to make them happen.

It is not, as I have said on many occasions, a perfect system. Much of the money that we citizens throw into the pot does indeed get sprayed up against a wall. Many of the uses to which it is put, like subsidizing elite athletes at the expense of providing hospital beds, get right up my nose.

And yes indeed, there are areas of wastage that would benefit greatly from improved management.

But that does not discredit the process as a whole.

And it certainly does not give you the right to characterize the entire system as being unauthorized, as you are so very fond of doing, by describing taxation as the government "expropriating its subjects’ property"

We are a democracy, and we elect a government with a mandate to do our bidding. Some of that bidding involves our allocating some of our cash to them for the provision of "uneconomic" services, in that they do not make the government a "profit"

But it is the community that ultimately decides, Peter Hume. Not your fictitious fairy godmother.

There's more, much more of your tedious claptrap to get through. Most of repetitions of the same mantra.

>>Tax is a compulsory impost. It is by definition non-consensual.<<

Poppycock.

To prove your point, why not stand for parliament on a "no tax" platform.

Prepare to be laughed off the podium.

Pericles
What you are referring to by ‘the community’ is *the electorate*. But there are three problems with this:
a) The electorate is not the community, which also includes minors, the illegal immigrants, the mentally disabled, the absent citizens, the rest of the world’s population. They don’t vote in the decisions in question, so who is this ‘the community’? Define who they are.
b) It’s not the will of ‘the community’ that’s implemented, nor the sub-set that is the electorate, but only the subset of that, that is the majority of the electorate.
c) There is no evidence that any given act of government represents the will of even the majority, because the electoral process does not provide for the electors to vote on any given proposed law (except in a referendum). A government can pass a law, or do an act, that the majority of the electorate do not in fact agree with, can’t it? Thus where is the evidence that ‘the community’ wants, say, a bus service? Only that the government provided it.

Therefore the argument that the actions of government presumptively represent the community is circular: ‘government does it because the community wants it, and the evidence that the community wants it is that government does it’.

The issue is whether government should provide a service, so it is only begging the question to say that the minority should be bound by the preference of the majority: more circular argument.

Tax is, by law, defined as a compulsory impost. If you are arguing to the contrary, then you are factually wrong. No amount of appeal to a mythical Moloch requiring the sacrifice of people’s liberty and property will change this fact.

“My argument, in a single sentence, is that communities everywhere are prepared to forego some of their income in the form of taxes, in order to provide services for the general good of that community.”

Prove it.

If they were prepared to forego it, there’d be no need for it to be in the form of tax, would there? And the evidence that they are prepared to forego it is? That government takes it under compulsion. And the evidence that it goes for the general good of the community is? That government spends it.

I have already shown reason why the actions of government must necessarily result in scarce resources being devoted to less urgent human wants, and that the community must sacrifice greater benefits as a result. If you want me to answer your question, you must first show that you understand what are the reasons I have given, else I’m not going to waste my time dealing with invincible ignorance.

BTW, splenetic personal indignation does not improve your argument either.

Peter Hume: "If they merely not-enforced it, i.e. respected its terms, the resulting competition would be better as I have shown."

We both agree good market places with strong competition are better than government by fiat. Beyond that I have not seen you show anything. You have not offered a single piece objective evidence backed by any figures, made up or otherwise. Instead, all I get is a video of some woman commenting on an unknown incident, and blaming it all on the government.

Here, you again make no sense whatsoever. You say you don't need the central courts, while still expecting the courts to "respected its terms" - ie enforce them. To me, that means you do need the courts. If you don't, please answer the second half of question I asked earlier: "Do we need a monopoly or not, and if not who is going to do the enforcing?".

As for "the same would apply to the citizens of different states", from the evidence it does. The League of Nations was created to do just that job. No doubt it and its successor, the United Nations, are an anathemas to you. However, the world after the UN became an accepted political edifice has been noticeably more peaceful than before. The first half of 20th century sees wars kills about 190m, and second half sees only 40m. And the population had trebled during the same century.

Peter Hume: "then there’s no need to fund them under compulsion, is there?"

Well if you truly believe we fund the police under compulsion, I suggest you take up Pericles suggestion and run for political office on the basis of eliminating the police and replacing them with privately owned security forces. It looks like you could use the lesson in reality. The proposition most voters don't want to fund the police is utterly absurd.