Mikk “Knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.”

Of course that is easier to do in a socialist model mikk,....
there is nothing to know the price or the value of...

being a bloke who believes in decentralisation i can agree with

“Decentralised, non hierarchical, democratic, bottom up planning and organising society...YES”

Individualism, not collectivism.

And as Ayn Rand said “Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).”

So I suggest we leave the authority with the individuals to do as they see fit, provided their “seeing fit” respects the same right of others.

Leaving government just to organise the police, military, prisons, courts, roads, street lights and other things which cannot be left in the hands of a single individual.

Forget all the namby-pamby handouts and nanny-state nonsense to business and to individuals, which just represents the recycling the reward of other peoples effort
Forget giving money to charlatan organisations like United Nations, hijacked by the collectivists and power freaks, which does nothing for Australia except criticise us for being too white and too well off.

Just leave the people who know best for themselves to do the best for themselves.

And reject the envy based politics of collectivism

Dear Belly,
In your view what is a christian.

Individuals do not work in isolation from each other - that is the reality. When you have more than one individual factored into any mathematical calculation you have a collective. The collective benefits from mutually agreed rules/laws as well some safety nets to protect from any potential extreme self-interest that might come at a heavy cost the liberty, freedoms and rights of others.

This is not the same as arguing that individualism is a bad thing - it isn't, but a group of individuals should not ever be at the mercy of one powerful individual in any group/island where the power relationship is not shared. That is where governments can play a role - the people can decide how big a role and in what areas some regulation is needed.

It is not all black and white and those that constantly tout the libertarian line forget that one person's 'liberty', often used to foster exploitative practices, should not come at a greater cost.

Yes it is a cliche' but there is a fine line and the balance is not always easy to ascertain when there are numerous competing agendas.

mikk
"[Capitalism] Knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."

What makes you think you're in any better position?

The values people act on, and which give rise to prices, are subjective. They are not quantifiable or measurable. They are not more known or knowable in a 'decentralised, non hierarchical, democratic, bottom up planning and organising society'. Besides, what's the difference between that method of social co-operation, and one based on individual liberty and private property?

Belly
"I truly ask do you Peter want to be taken as some one who we should look up to?"

What is this? Some kind of personal argument? The question whether central planning can solve the knowledge problem involved, has got nothing to do with my personal characteristics.

Can you show a solution to the problem involved? If not, I suggest you concentrate more on the issue, and less on personalities.

Pelican
We have already factored in collectives - voluntary collectives. You have not established how adding a coercive monopoly collective is going to make the situation better rather than worse.

The greatest inequality between one private individual and another is never as great as the least inequality between the individual and the government.

Also you have not defined exploitation. If a transaction is voluntary, then axiomatically each individual only enters into to it because they think they will be better off. The fact you don't like it, doesn't mean that the transaction was unfair.

You have merely imported into the ethics, the same assumption that the collectivists have imported into the economics. Pointing out a problem with voluntary social co-operation does not justify jumping to the conclusion that involuntary social co-operation is morally superior. The reason it is worse as a matter of economics is because it is worse as a matter of ethics: human value is destroyed by using violence or threats as the basis of social co-operation.

Pelican “Individuals do not work in isolation from each other - that is the reality. When you have more than one individual factored into any mathematical calculation you have a collective.”

Wrong!

Where you have individuals, action autonomously, you have a group of individuals.

For instance, a market involves two individuals brought together for the purpose of an exchange or trade.

Where you have individuals working under the direction of a “single governing body”, you have a collective.

Individuals working autonomously, never have opportunity to impose an illegitimate demand on other individuals but

The Problem is

“Collectivist” control of individuals has consistently failed to protect those individuals from the despotic tyranny of someone who gains control of the “single governing body”

“It is not all black and white and those that constantly tout the libertarian line forget that one person's 'liberty', often used to foster exploitative practices, should not come at a greater cost.”

It is black and white, but the line between the two is not straight but twists and turns through the mitigation of competing views.

Somehow, I feel the “exploitive practices” of a single governing body” are far more onerous, riskier and “blacker” and far outweigh the opportunities available to any single individual, even if that individual were as wealthy as a Bill Gates or Warren Buffet.

Another point to note, the bureaucracy, which is lurks behind a “single governing body”, is the ideal environment for the development of the illegal and immoral application of power.

Such illegal and immoral opportunity does not exist in the smaller, more open environment of “libertarian” government.

But pretending more than one person collected together represents a “collective” is a joke...

It becomes a “collective” when individuals are no longer free to come and go as they please and as we saw with people being shot and killed trying to climb to freedom over the Berlin Wall.