Pericles

“Anyone been to Sydney Airport recently? [etc] …”

Are you really not understanding that, to the extent the publicly-funded service was better, it came from taking the money from other people who weren’t using it?

If those who use airport services are not willing to pay for them voluntarily, why should those who don’t use them be forced to pay for them under compulsion?

This confused and grasping mentality underlies all the arguments for government services.

"Government is the great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." Bastiat

The only way it appears to be a benefit is because people, like Pericles, can’t or won’t understand the smoke-and-mirrors economics of forced taking and free handouts, and therefore fail to understand what is in issue.

It only appears to be a benefit to the old person for government to run a bus service, if we ignore the fact that government has, through taxes and the sneak-tax of inflation, taken 50 to 70 percent of everything he earned during his life.

The belief that government provides beneficial services is irrational, once we take into account
a) the role of government in causing the original problem of capital consumption, and consequential poverty, and
b) the costs, which are *always* higher when government provides the service.

In any event, if the purpose of the government service is redistribution of income, which is essentially what Pericles is arguing, that is no reason for government to run a bus service, hospital, etc. It would be far cheaper and more effective to just give the relevant person the relevant amount of money.

“Once upon a time, we considered the provision of infrastructure - railways, roads, telephone lines, water, electricity - etc. as being the proper concern of a government.”

Who’s ‘we’? The advocates of government cannot answer the question, because the statement is meaningless, and merely reflects their circular thinking. Infrastructure is what it is government’s purpose to provide, and government is the organization whose purpose is to provide infrastructure.

And a coercion-based monopoly would be better at providing services because…? Because the costs are higher? Because it’s based on violence instead of consent? Because it’s based on restricting choice? More irrationality.

If government is better at providing its services, why only them? Why not socks, and sex, and pizza, and tables? Please answer specifically.

Rstuart
The USA health system is characterized by intensive and extensive governmental intervention at all levels. It is a classic example of government failure, not market failure: see
http://blog.mises.org/archives/010466.asp

All the arguments for government to provide services are based on a mixture of confusion and greed. The whole of society is made poorer and unfairer as a result.

Peter Hume: "people, like Pericles, can’t or won’t understand the smoke-and-mirrors economics of forced taking and free handouts, and therefore fail to understand what is in issue."

By golly, that was unexpected twist. This thread is begining to look positively enticing. I can hardly wait for the next instalment. Over to you, Pericles.

By coercion based monopolies I presume you mean Medicare?
That’s the medical health scheme introduced by Whitlam, with the guarantee there would be no increases above the 1 % deduction.
Now it’s around 5 % approximately 5 times the original. Why?
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/SP/medicare.htm
The government introducing the scheme said that inflation would cover the costs and there would never be an increase. Damn that word never especially from a Hawke.
Well salaries have increased to around $550 per week by (minimum wage) guidelines, from around $40 per week.
Around 12 times.
The of course there the gun levy? That the buyback scheme that of course worked wonderfully well. Funded by Medicare?
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,24487081-5005962,00.html
Whilst you have government without responsibility you get this ad hoc policy decision making process.
One of the reasons why America kicked the Poms out.
Something about taxation and representation I believe.

Hmm, that's a difficult question. I don't think so because providing all the public services in the most efficient way is probably not possible. There are so many things the government has to take care of, e.g. public transport, health care, social or retirement payments. I am looking for a good retirement plan at the moment, so I know how problematic this is, the German pension plans for example (See: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~sandrade/pension-plan.htm) are quite nice. Although there are lot of things that can be improved, I don't think a government can act 100% like a business.

I know it is confusing, Peter Hume. But if you concentrate hard, some light might eventually get through.

Let's begin with the obvious, and work up to the difficult stuff.

>>If government is better at providing its services, why only them? Why not socks, and sex, and pizza, and tables? Please answer specifically.<<

Actually, there are two issues woven into one here. The first is whether socks, pizza and tables are services. They are not, they are goods. And sex is not generally considered a service, at least in this context.

The second is the concept of government being "better at providing services"

It is nothing to do with being "better". It is a matter of being appropriate. The contention with which you take particular exception.

>>Are you really not understanding that, to the extent the publicly-funded service was better, it came from taking the money from other people who weren’t using it?<<

Remember, I was talking about airports. There is no reason why airports cannot be run without recourse to the taxpayer, but at the same time refrain from the severe gouging that has become the norm when they are in private hands.

However, I recognize that isn't your main issue.

>>if the purpose of the government service is redistribution of income, which is essentially what Pericles is arguing<<

It isn't, of course. That's just how it appears to you, because you object to any and all taxation.

>>Infrastructure is what it is government’s purpose to provide, and government is the organization whose purpose is to provide infrastructure.<<

Sorry, that is your circular argument, not mine.

The concept of governments providing infrastructure in the form of roads, railways, bridges etc. is not "redistribution". It is a sound way to grow an economy, by making all forms of commerce easier.

Providing community-funded services that are required more by one section of the populace - the sick, the elderly etc. - than another, doesn't have the same direct benefit.

But spreading the financial load of such services across the entire - consenting - community, seems a perfectly reasonable goal.