Nature imposes scarcity on mankind, but the miraculous State, by passing laws, can make people better off without any corresponding cost. It’s false.

We must instead consider the possibility, which you seem to keep ignoring, that, if the State interventions in industry imposed costs greater than the market rate, then the children would not be employed in improved conditions as you keep imaginging, but rather, would go back to doing what they did before capitalism ever employed them, namely, dying.

If the benefit of halving infant mortality counts for nothing in favour of capitalism; while the State’s failure to perform its own self-proclaimed obligations to protect children, or its own abuses of children count nothing against the State, then the whole discussion is biased from the start.

You’re using one standard to judge capitalism, and a completely different one to judge the State. Capitalism must account to you for its benefits *and* its costs. But not the State. People applaud the benefits that are seen, and ignore the costs which are usually unseen.

There must be an even-handed weighing of the positives and negatives of private, versus the positives and negatives of State action. Then we keep seeing that the State is a protection racket, that’s all. There is no more reason to presume its effectuality in caring for widows and orphans than there to presume the same in favour of Al Capone or the Somali pirates.

The only way people conclude in favour of State action is to perpetually ignore the costs and disadvantages of State action, and presume the benefits. But obviously if we do that, anything will seem beneficial. Its unfalsifiable: irrational: divine right of kings stuff.

So let’s cut to the chase. There has to be the possibility of my proving to you that the downside of state action outweighs the upside, otherwise it’s not a rational discussion.

What reason or evidence would you accept as proving that the State’s interventions always entail a net negative consequence worse than the original problem they were intended to solve?

Thankyou Peter- I would add to you next question about difference of ethics that it would also open up the ability to actually debate them as a nation with more direct democratic input- with the added emphasis on a need to accommodate more views to set some standards that actually reflect those of the people.

Rawmustard- but that is the problem isn't it?
In America, Australia and the UK, the president/prime minister can call the shots at his own discretion, and may only need to get about 30-50 of his colleages in congress or parliament to allow it.
The public, in this circumstance, had zero actual say, and were put in a position to decide if this is worth voting in the other guy over and risk any negative policies he could be packing- or else grudgingly tolerate it (not to mention if the guy in charge makes a mess of the place, they may put him in a second time hoping he will finish the job and put the country together again, as opposed to cut and run, leaving the place in a shambles).

With that in mind, the results of an indirect representative-only democracy, and a direct democracy where the people would have decided specifically if they DID or NOT want to go to the war in question may be very substantial.

As of now, we are making a potential mistake in assuming that our masters going ahead and doing what they wanted at their own discretion, had anything to do with getting the public to actually believe it, as opposed to tolerate it knowing that the alternative was to vote Labor into government and submit to their way of doing things instead (which at the time seemed to not be an option).

Or for that matter, that (in our system) the party that wins the election actually had the support of over 51% of the people- when in fact both major parties get only 30-40% every election and our country does not demand an actual voter majority)

Peter,

My opinion is that the State and capitalism in modern Western society go together like horse and carriage. Each sanctions and facilitates the other's behaviour.
They have a mutually beneficial relationship - and I believe the reason it has seen such longevity (despite Marx's predictions) is because the two have joined together so fulsomely in the party.
The State provides a certain amount of social "conscience" while at the same time providing the apparatus - both material and diplomatic - for capitalism to roll out it's wares.
The fact that the State takes such a hefty cut is part of the deal - it's a very finely balanced arrangement.
If capitalism was allowed to run the show by itself, it would only be a matter of time before the proletariat would find themselves in dire straits and the whole thing would collapse. It's important for the bulk of society to keep buying superfluous stuff.
The reason capitalism grew stronger is that the State increasingly ingratiated itself and intervened to create optimum social conditions for the system to continue.

""" but that is the problem isn't it? """

Yes it is!

Sorry Exalted one. I don't understand what you're trying to say?
Do you want the public to directly vote on whether we should go to war via a direct democratic vote as you suggested the Swiss do?

If so, that's what I see as a problem as Peter has demonstrated in his original post.

""" But what could possibly justify such high crimes on such a large scale? Obviously the pretexts given for war, the weapons of mass destruction and such, were lies and it was later proved that the politicians knew them to be lies at the time.

What about democracy? Here we see the entire justification for democracy stripped bare."""

I don't agree that our representatives should decide for us either.

How about we just don't go to war unless we are directly attacked!? Then there's no need for a vote, the citizens will automatically decide what's best for them I'm sure!

This preemptive strike nonsense sinisterly executed is why we're in the mess we're in and why we're discussing this grouse injustice.
But more to the point. How the state manipulates democracy for its own ends.

Poirot
Looks like our conscience is indulging its chronic bad habit of killing innocent men, women and children without mercy, paid for with funds it got without the owners’ consent by threatening them with violence.

Not much of a conscience, and anyway, I thought you were opposed to such abuses?

You are presuming the beneficence of the state again. What I mean is, what reason or evidence would you accept as satisfying you that the State is not presumptively beneficent or virtuous, but is a criminal, destructive association through and through?

Hazza
If all the people have an interest in common, only then would it make sense for everyone to have an equal vote.

When a country is being invaded by unprovoked aggressors, such as when Japan invaded Australia in WWII, committing atrocities throughout South-east Asia along the way, like cutting the babies out of pregnant women and so on, that is one of the few times when everyone has a common interest, and it makes sense for everyone to have an equal say.

But what about if, as has happened so many times in Africa, two antagonistic groups have a democratic vote on whether the majority get to oppress the minority?

That is ethically no different from democracy in the West? Since government’s power to tax is taken for granted, everyone becomes involved in a scramble for mutual plunder. If you take an ordinary sample of Australians, everyone is involved in getting myriad unknowable forced handouts from everyone else, via the State.

These handouts cancel each other out and the result is only that the State makes everyone worse off, except its own functionaries and anyone who parasitise a net benefit. It gives everyone the choice of being exploited or exploiting, that is all. It punishes work, savings, delayed grat, initiative, family, responsibility. It rewards speculation, debt, instant grat, rules and regulations, victim status, and trying to live at everyone else’s expense. Deciding everything and anything by democratic process is unethical, anti-social and unsustainable.

Peter,

I am opposed to "our conscience" acting in such a manner. My opinion, for instance, is that the Iraq invasion was an abomination.

I'm not excusing the aggression of government by any means, only noting that it has a partnership with capitalism.