Around the world at the moment there's a real move in various nations for a shift to democracy. This is great news for the people of these nations who have been under the weight of totalitarianism for way too long. Probably longer than many can remember. The thing is, from my point of view, is that the reality of democracy isn't what we would really hope it to be. The theory is great, and so is the basic reality, but JUST underneath it all is the truth of capitalism and the power brokers of big business dictating the rules. Just look at how Gillard got into 'power' - I don't believe she is really running the show - and the reality of our society. We don't vote for the best party. We don't vote for the best person to lead these parties. We vote for the lesser of a very limited selection of evils and in reality we have very limited say in the direction of this nation.

If we were to offer the people of these nations attempting to find their idea of freedom, what advice could we offer them?

StG,

Probably the same advice as we should give ourselves - work hard at it and never rest on your laurels. In an imperfect world, in which capitalism looks likely to be present for some time yet, be aware of all the pitfalls and possibilities for corruption, anti-democratic behaviour, complacency and petty in-fighting. It's a process which is never finished, a work-in-progress, not a finishing line that you cross and it's all smooth sailing from then on.

And probably a major danger to democracy is the garbling of metaphors by smug commentators.

Joe

Thanks Stg for this post , a fascinating question.

I think I would like to know in a nutshell, "what is it that most people want", before I answered this question

I confident I know what that is, but I have no idea how to prove it.

I think we all want civil liberty. This goal is prevented for most people by a conga line of control freaks.

My father used to say that, "People who seek power, are nearly always the least qualified to have it". Or words to that effect.

Freedom was achieved, (in my fathers belief) by certain basic understandings applying to all people. He believed it was the responsibility of Gov't to supply the basics of civilisation such as access to health care, education, infrastructure, essential services etc, equal opportunity, and that good Govt's maintained, and assured it's populace of such services.

He fought for this Australia, that one that once was, and it's values.

Of course capitalism virtually ensures that this set of principals is destroyed.

Are capitalism and democracy capable of co-existence?, of course they're not; they are in fact at cross purposes, simply because human greed is a fundamental barrier to the freedom of most people. Power and money are the same thing. The people with the most freedom are the people possessing the most wealth.

George Bush explained in his defining speech that his constituents were the haves and the have mores. What a fine leader among people, someone we should all aspire to be : not!.

In a sickening piece of American propaganda re "the National parks" on SBS recently, I witnessed the orator claiming the America's national parks defined the spirit of their people and nation. Of course capitalism would have had these wild places exploited for the benefit of the few, as was the case with Niagara Falls, but one forward thinking member of congress found a way round this and introduced the precedent and concept that some things are beyond capitalism. This is one of the few times that democracy actually worked.

Nearby the national parks, America's successive Govt's, have allowed capitalist enterprises such as mining companies, to pollute the environment of their people and country so comprehensively that the drinking water causes cancer.

The people who live in these area's, whom own their properties, have worthless land, and little or no opportunity to fix this, because the capitalist juggernaut has priority in the eyes of their masters, Congress.

Democracy and capitalism working against each other.

Can we have a poll, that asks the question" what is it that you want from democracy"
No we can't, because this is the last thing the powerful would want.

Civil freedom and the guarantee of the basics in life, is all any individual requires to make their own decisions.

If I may plagiarise and quote the words of this worlds Poet Laureat. A musician whose music is so beautiful that defies imagination, Leonard Cohen, from his song "Democracy".

"I'm sentimental if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can't stand the scene
And I'm neither left or right I'm just staying home tonight,
Getting lost in that hopeless little screen
but I'm stubborn as those garbage bags that time cannot decay
I'm junk, but I'm still holding up, this little wild bouquet
Democracy is coming to the USA

It's coming through a hole in the air
From those nights in Tianiman Square
It's coming from the field, and this ain't exactly real
Or it's real though it ain't exactly there
From the war against disorder, from the sirens night and day
From the fires of the homeless, from the ashes of decay
Democracy is coming to the USA".

And so on. The classic battle between Democracy and Capitalism lain bare in the language of the layman.

I'm saying Stg there is an alternative, "Democracy without Capitalism".

I think this is what most people would want, if they had that opportunity.

what advice?

sure here goes

demonic autocracy :
de-moc-racy..is a three thimbles ..and one pea trick
played with two thimbles ..and no pea

you are chosing

wether to get slapped
by the left hand ..or the right
[they will take turns]

you will still be policed ..by the same 'service'
serving your leaders adgenda...or big business..but never yours

the media will decide who gets elected
it will make their current champion glow..and the other appear to be serving the darkside..in time the voting machines will decide the issue and 51 percent of ignorants will vicyimise the other 49 percent

govt will follow the adgenda of the swinning voters
and check everything via focus groups to find the right word
that hides their real adgenda

you will hear such wonderous words such as ..'work choices'
but thats not about workers chosing ..or having choice

you will hear about family values..
but never which families values

you will hear im ruling for all of us
but we will be lorded over by them
the only change is the leaders

you will still have the same public servants serving others

they will claim trickle down
allways payed for by those
barely holding their heads abouve the water's

[water's dont trickle up]..
but fat rises upon the waters
scum floats ..poluting the fat..turning it into render..[unto seizer]

Thinker 2,

Cheers for the reply. Yeah, it's an interesting one. My idea of democracy is probably in line with the vibe of what the founders of the U.S of A had in mind. And really, they are THE case study of what can go wrong. Unfortunately, I don't believe there's such a thing as a perfect democratic society because of humans being who they are. Hippy communes are another example of good intentions but invariably end up with dominant personalities screwing it up royally.

'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes' (Who watches the watchmen?)

We are who we are, and we are tribal predators run by alpha personalities.

Under One God,

Sorry mate, you lost me at 'thimbles and no pea'. NO idea what you're on about.

The question should not be “What do people want?” because if they want something that’s unethical or anti-social, there’s still no reason why they should have it.

Majority rule, backed up by force, does not prove that something is right or good; yet that is all that democracy has to offer.

People want to make their lives better. They will do so by mutually advantageous work and production if they have to – the economic way - or by stealing and exploitation if they can – the political way. Government is a machine to make stealing and exploitation safe by making it legal, that’s all.

The problem with democracy is that in its very principle, it’s immoral. There is no reason why everyone should be entitled to an equal say in what values everyone else should be forced to obey, nor an equal share in everyone else’s work and production. Democracy and freedom are inconsistent with each other. Democracy leads to demagoguery and bigger, more intrusive, more socialist and chaotic government which is what we are seeing now all over the western world.

The very principle of democracy – one person, one vote – leads to a free-for-all in which everyone tries to live at everyone else’s expense.

If all the crimes and abuses committed by the Mubarak government were committed with the backing of a majority vote, would that make them okay?

“The theory is great…”

Therefore the theory is not great. The fact that big business are able to get political favours under any political system is not caused by capitalism – the *private* ownership of the means of production – it’s caused by government. It is made worse by socialist and democratic governments, because socialism means the *political* direction of the means of production (exactly what you're blaming on capitalism), and democracy means the idea that anything elected governments do “represents” the greater good. when it obviously doesn't. So stop blaming capitalism.

Advice for freedom: social relations must be *voluntary*. Force and fraud are illegal for everyone else – they should be illegal for governments too.

Loudmouth,

Cheers.

Peter,

You might have to elaborate a bit on this:

"There is no reason why everyone should be entitled to an equal say in what values everyone else should be forced to obey, nor an equal share in everyone else’s work and production. Democracy and freedom are inconsistent with each other."

and

" ....one person, one vote – leads to a free-for-all in which everyone tries to live at everyone else’s expense."

In political theory, what would be superior to "an equal say in what values everyone else should be forced to obey" ?

If you inserted something like " .... with elections to be held at regular intervals, voting to be compulsory for all adult citizens', I would be happier: even minimal involvement may be part of the process of cultivating democracy.

But about your hypothetical about Mubarak: did he ever really gain a majority vote ? I don't think so. Why do you think it would have made it easier for him to commit crimes and abuses if it were so ? Surely the reverse is more likely ?

Joe

A Democratic Alternative to "Democracy (ie the system of government WE use)"
How about "Direct Democracy"?
Switzerland, Ted Mack, CIR, you know the rest.

As soon as people who are, in actuality, complaining about "Capitalism" learn to get their terminology right, the sooner they will realize that "Democracy" isn't so much a faulty system- as a system we don't actually quite have- at least in anything but the flimsiest dose.

Countries merely call themselves democratic for popularity points (even North Korea does it).
The only country that does have a legitimate claim is Switzerland.

On the note of former-dictatorships being thrilled with any system with more liberty than they have- it's why so many citizens of former autocratic feudal monarchies were so thrilled to become communist- even that is an upgrade on their original life.

If we are trying to find ways to improve on democracy, in an imperfect world, limited terms of office must surely be essential ? Even the Yanks have got that right.

Compare this to presidents-for-life: How often do dictators (Duvalier, Mobutu, Idi Amin) and would-be dictators (Chavez) try that on ? Not to mention the de facto dictators-for-life (the Castros, Mugabe, Ghaddafi, Mubarak, Putin, Saddam).

Hazza, can you please spell out your version of direct democracy ?

Joe

“In political theory…”

It’s about a voluntary society.

Politics is about control of the state. The state, whether democratic or not, is the group in society claiming a legal monopoly of the use of force over a subject territory, including a legal monopoly on ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction) and of expropriation of others’ product (taxation).

This ethical double standard underlies it all: - “I’m allowed to hit you, but you’re not allowed to hit me”. This is reflected in the different terminology used to describe the same anti-social behaviour when the state does it, and when everyone else does it e.g.:
“murder”/”execution”
“mass murder”/”defence policy”
“robbery/extortion”/”taxation”
“counterfeiting”/”monetary policy”, “quantitative easing”
“people trafficking”/”immigration policy
etc.

The idea that, if only we could give everyone an equal say, we would have an ideal polity, is wrong in ethics and in practice as I have shown.

Democracy doesn’t mean the majority won't commit abuses. It just means they will *legalise* them. The state is intrinsically a predatory institution. Democracy will not make it less so – indeed it will make tyranny even more perfectly intrusive.

It may be that Mubarak’s wrongs would have been lesser if the people had had more input. But it may not be. The classic case is the popular election of Hitler. There’s no *principle* in democracy stopping corrupt and anti-social behaviour by governments. And many abuses when legalized, cease to be *recognized* as abuses eg corporate handouts.

In any event, the lesser evil argument is only that elective dictatorship would be a lesser evil than non-elective dictatorship. It’s like saying the law forbidding the mutilation of slaves is less evil than the law permitting it. The lesser of two evils is still evil. We should be aiming for a *non-evil* alternative.

Regular and compulsory voting – more input from the people into political decision-making - will do nothing to reduce these ethical and practical evils inherent in democracy – because the problem is political decision-making itself.

Slavery was common for years until a revolution in *ideas* abolished it. Our challenge is a similar revolution in ideas about the state.

Perhaps capitalism has run it's race. The benefits so called, are short term anyway and don't take future generations into account. Exploitation of the present is the hallmark of capitalism, but even more so in the ex USSR where pollution looms just as large as it does in the U.S. The most successful capitalist economy today is China.

Democracy provides the impression that we actually have a choice in these matters, but of course in reality, in practice, no choice actually exists.

If the future of each and every one of us was dependent upon the immediate cessation of exploitation at this very point in time, the evidence of imminent destruction of the planet irrefutable, I wonder how important the continuing existence of Rio Tinto would be, even to the current masters of that company.

My guess is that profits would suddenly become irrelevant to everyone, because there is no nearby planet that we can immigrate too in order that our species survives.

We would have to find a way to co-exist with the planet we have. Or more accurately the planet that has us. A planet with a proven far greater capacity to ensure it's own survival than we have to ensure our own.

We are the modern day dinosaurs choosing our own impending destruction democratically with opportunity through capitalism being nirvana, the motivator, the reason for thinking the way we do.

In the big picture we are not the dominant species but a pest, a threat to our own survival.
This position we willing choose despite our own apparent capacity for cognisance and logical thought.

The massive ego of mankind could well be about to take a hit, and we wouldn't see it coming, because most of attention is absorbed by commercial considerations. Our research and sciences and searches for truth now totally dominated and directed by profits and the political and social view points of the privileged few in search of greater control, power, and personal wealth.

Makes no actual sense. One day all political theorem will be finally identified for what is, self indulgent navel gazing.

I think I actually agree with you Peter Hume.

"Slavery was common for years until a revolution in *ideas* abolished it. Our challenge is a similar revolution in ideas about the state".

Are we both anti-social ?. Or are we both concerned about the future ?.

In our own way we arrive at the same conclusion.

Peter,

Turn that state/individual dichotomy around: ideally, the state has, with the support of the electorate, the prerogatives, the people's authority, to exercise power over all individuals under its sovereign control.

The state takes over all those powers that individuals may have exercised in a stateless, primitive, society. So, having delegated those powers, individuals can no longer exercise these powers themselves except with the concurrence of the state.

So yes, what the state may order, imprison, organise armed forces, print money, etc., because, through elections, it has the authority of the people to do so, but individuals may not do so, since they have no authority other than their own, which, in a democracy, they are deemed to have delegated to the state.

Imperfect as this may be, even unjust at times, how can we improve on it ?

Joe

thinker2

What is the alternative to the private ownership of the means of production? All property is owned by the state? You do realise that would be far worse for human beings as well as for the environment, don't you?

Would the alterntive produce the same amount using fewer resources? How would it be thus more productive without using the instruments of profit and loss to calculate what is more or less economical?

Or would it produce much less, so that many people now living would die or be much reduced in their living standard? If so, you're not comparing apples with apples. If people really did value death, poverty and disease above life, health and enjoyment, capitalism could save more resources too.

But they don't.

Loudmouth
Your theory takes the matter no further than Hobbes left it, and he left it without any constraint on the power of Leviathan to commit abuses against its subject population.

Both the idea that the state originates in a social contract, and the idea that the state represents the people better than they represent themselves, are demonstrably false.

(For proof see “No Social Contract” and “Unrepresentative Government”
http://economics.org.au/?s=unrepresentative+government)

Once we recognise that an idea is indefensible, the rational thing to do is *let go* of it.

“How can we improve on it?”
As with getting rid of slavery, the big problems are not the ethical or practical ones. The big problems are the *ideas*.

Many people are very unhappy with their own state, and states in general. But they have been indoctrinated (by states!) to believe the lie that states are intrinsically good and necessary.

The first improvement is the *idea* of recognizing that the state is *intrinsically* a predatory and exploitative institution. It is not caring, wise or productive. It is made for aggressive violence and, in the case of democracy, for demagoguery – getting votes by bribery, no matter how unprincipled or anti-social.

If this *truth* were as widespread and popular, as the *falsehood* that the state presumptively represents the greater good, we would be past the greatest practical difficulty.

Peter,

i take your point about Hobbes but I did try to stress the people's involvement, popular support, concurrence through the ballot box:

" ... the state has, with the support of the electorate, the prerogatives, the people's authority, to exercise power over all individuals under its sovereign control"

and I trying to envisage how to improve on that arrangement.

Actually, I think Hobbes' Leviathan is currently being dragged, trouserless, through the streets of Tunis, Cairo, Tripoli, Manama, Sana'a - even Djibouti ! Djibouti, for God's sake ! The people speak ! Fantastic !

I'd certainly agree that PRE-CAPITALIST, PRE-DEMOCRATIC (not the same thing) the state was/is as you describe:

" .... *intrinsically* a predatory and exploitative institution. It is not caring, wise or productive."

Yes indeed ! Perhaps not so much 'electoral' states - we get what we ask for, and we deserve as much. In pre-electoral states, if you like, yes, the role of the state - ancient Egypt, Athens, Rome, Delhi, Ayudhya, Sri Vijaya, Abadan, Mexico, wherever - was to tax, exploit, pillage, use forced labour and arbitrary power, in order to maintain a ruling class, pure and simple, no camouflage about it.

James C. Scott has a brilliant book just out: "The Art of Not Being Governed" precisely on this relationship, and the ability of people in very rough mountainous country in SE Asia to escape its effects.

But perhaps it's a different ball-game in democracies: we choose someone from amongst ourselves to represent us, imperfect as this may turn out, given intervening party systems. So how do we improve on this system ?

As a long-term socialist, I don't see any form of socialism employed up until now as having been any real improvement: China ? Cuba ? Zimbabwe ? God forbid. Russia ? North Korea ? Christ help us.

Joe

I was about to ask the same question as Loudmouth, Peter. This voluntary society you suggest is pretty much the same as I would want.

It is also clear that the state for the most part does not, and has not represented the greater good. I'm hoping that sooner or later the penny will drop. Mankind will come to the realisation under his own steam, that is there is a greater good.

Idea's as you say PH are the only way forward. Can freedom co-exist without anarchy ?.
Possibly, if most of us agree that it should.

Is it inevitable that the reason the state does not act for the greater good, because in our society, vested interests control decision making and not the state ?.

Is the reason we hold the burning match so close to the fuse, because the state and commerce and industry in our democracy are in cahoots with one another ?.

This is closer to the truth than purely holding the state responsible and portraying capitalism and its captains as blameless Peter.

Instead of disagreeing about whose culpable, I would be very interested to hear your idea's re solving this perplexing problem before we arrive at the end game, or the judgement day if your religious.

some good points all round
but little about alternatives
so lets expoliate a bit on what might work better

for mine i would eliminate big fish all together
divide the electorate cake ..into many small semi autonimous fiefdoms

ie make away with states as such and councils etc
and self-rule ..via school districts..run as cooperatives

so instead of 7 states and hundreds of councils

we have thousands of school councils ...that form arround things like shared waterways and specialised industry and supportive educational centers..each maintaining govt services..that all centralise arround schools

anyhthing the people want ..gets got via a school
need a licence or a pasport or a bed or just a meal
go to the school

want to do business..or build sometrghing..
the students accept and test the application guided by advisers they pick and pay

want a loan..the school issues its credit
everything but everything govt /business related is done via the school...[everyday decisions are approved or tested at the school]

old people get housed at schools
the sick get nursed at schools

schools even pick the member ..who represents them
for each specific higher issue ..and will allways be the local expert holding the funds that fund any national project..

anyhow go pick it to pieces..it will work
each school even has its own local currency
is paid for by half a percent transaction tax..[all other taxes are abolished]..the assets in the school[electoral ]district balance with the funds available

school also insures assets locally
[and surrounding school districts share the burden
everything is contracted out..on small scale with payment asured and automaticly audeted..[by kids overseing accountants]

the current problem is all the money /power goes to the big fish
its time we let the small fry have a go..!

One under god,

If your desired position is B, and the current position is A, then the problem is how to get from A to B :)

Would you want to put your plan to a vote ?

And an an old Marxist, I still take note of the importance of the economy, how it is organised, how work is organised and how product is distributed. You might need to build that into your model.

Joe

Well I’m glad we’re agreed on the desirability of a voluntary society. This means that any use of aggression, other than to defend against aggression, is illegitimate.

But you must actually believe and accept it.

'Fighting for peace is like fu*cking for virginity’. Supporting the forced expropriation of the owners of private property to fund political redistributions, is inconsistent with voluntary society.

Your mission – should you choose to accept it – is to reconcile your agreement with voluntary society with your disagreement with private ownership of the means of production.

Certainly the results of attempts to implement socialism are negatively inspiring.

Socialists’ intellectual contribution to the problem has been fourfold.

1.
To believe that just because they intend well, therefore they are doing good.

2.
To believe that socialism is good in theory it’s just that there are problems with implementing it in practice.

This is incorrect. The whole purpose of theory is to explain and predict reality, so the fact that socialism keeps not working in practice, is proof that it’s not good in theory. It’s the other way around: socialism is bad in theory and that’s why it doesn’t work in practice.

For example, labour is a means of production. How could socialism – the public ownership of the means of production - have any other result than to give ownership of people to the state?

3.
We need to understand that the problems that resulted from attempts to implement socialism - USSR, N.Korea etc., did not happen *despite* the public ownership of the means of production, but *because of* it. They didn't happen because socialism *didn't* work, but because it *did*.

Such problems *MUST NECESSARILY* follow from attempting to replace capitalism with socialism.

4.
In the west also, socialists have looked at problems caused by socialism, and wrongly attributed them to something else. Most of what socialists blame on “capitalism”, is
a) logically or factually wrong because it's based on socialist economic theory, or
b) caused by *government* - pursuing policies legitimised by socialism - eg forced redistributions to political favourites -> corporate handouts.

Peter,

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with the definition of socialism, as it has been applied, as the longest and most painful way to go from early capitalism to early capitalism.

I'm not even so sure any more about the need for public ownership of all means of production (let alone the public ownership of housing), or the abolition of profits: as long as there is a self-selected group which can accrue all power, and all control over public assets, to itself, then how is public ownership any improvement ?

The problem for socialism is to improve on democracy politically, and on capitalism economically - to build on these, not necessarily to tear them down and put something entirely different - and unseen - in their place.

Joe

Loudmouth- my version, which I am sure corresponds to most people's definition:
A system of democracy where:
-Citizens have the ability to initiate binding referendums via collecting signatures in a petition (like the Swiss do)
-Requirement that certain political changes that greatly affect the public interest and cannot be assumed to lie in the mandate of representatives alone, such as the country joining in a war or signing up the nation to international treaties, must pass a referendum majority (again, like the Swiss- hence why they always remain neutral).

As it stands, Australia has neither, with exception to changing the constitution. As referndums can only be initiated by a parliamentary majority, while voters themselves lack many democratic rights and powers the average Swiss citizen enjoys, we are therefore less democratic.

Hence, more direct accountability = more direct democracy.

StG I have thought before joining in.
Capitalism is here to stay.
Socialism never worked.
Yet we are in part Socialist.
Try this,our current system may be made to work if.
Elections took place every two years.
Both houses every time.
Accountability,any politician caught in breaking the law banned from getting even their own super contributions or pension.
Much more could be done but I see benefits in that lot.

how can a new system be created...easy
the fed cobnstitution allows for the creation of extra states

so we creates 550

the govt gives each a budget...in coins
under right of seignorage...and minted for their specifuic catchment area..based on popyulation needs or asets or both

fed parliment
[redirects social security pensions etc etc through that
and its adminesterd locally..in person..in hard currency
via concensus and preceedant right

these new states pay their public servants direct..in coin
that is banked into the bank at true values

coins have the value.. assigned them of old
and the federal fiat currency..[bank notes and credit]
retain egsactly as they are

new coins are minted..their value is deemed the same as silver
just as the federal constitution declares them to be [the 'only lawfull tender'..

making the face value of one cent
equal its true legal value..[which has been subverted]..
by trickery
of its weight in sterling silver..

councils are privatised to their workers
and all official records ..permits building infastructure plans etc
held by council movedc to schools..to be held at schools..

who determine where the services terminate or origonate
within their districts...assuring supply to each other by treaty and contibutary payment asurances as they go..

it can al be solved simply
but there can be no more big fish..in position to steal the big money
no more big fish selling the peoples assets or moving money arround with secrecy..

every penny pays the tax..that is taxed again
when it leaves its source districts..[at say ten percent]

banks get their money by socital decree
appoints their 'own ' titular head...[sovereign]..of rather an empowerd govener general..[ombudsman sherif king all in one]who serves at the liesure of his people by informed concent..as long as the peoople support their efforts

and societies guarentee..underwrites all the empowerments

all created under right of seignorage
underpinned by their estates labvours and its real values
wether utilised or not..

each state underwrites its neighbours
according to the services/assets etc ..they share
its all dopne by honouring their promise walking their talk

A free Market economy will always result in the power of the wealthy. However they have a moral responsibility to employ and diseminate wealth to keep the economy flourishing - maybe directed for them to gain more power and wealth. It allows initative, immagination and drive to achieve; however it is important their vision is for the betterment of all. That is the principle of Christianity.

A free Market economy will always result in the power of the wealthy.
Philo,
the wealthy are only so because the consumer is so indiscriminate.

Capitalism in its raw form is the expression of individual choices being met by entrepreneurs. Capitalism is the engine of democracy, and is suppressed by every totalitarian regime either directly or by corruption.

There is no democracy without capitalism

StG asked 19 February 2011 1:10:30 PM:

>... If we were to offer the people of these nations attempting to find their idea of freedom, what advice could we offer them? ...

In scenes reminiscent of Isaac Asimov's Foundation series of books, Dr. Ismail Serageldin, Director of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina in Egypt has described how library staff joined hands with members of the public to protect the library during recent protests. Dr. Serageldin also described how the library spread "the values of democracy, freedom of expression, tolerance, diversity and pluralism" and so helped ferment the revolution: http://www.bibalex.org/

The Australian Information Commission proposed ten "Draft Principles on Open Public Sector Information". Comments are invited via a blog by 1 March 2011: http://blog.tomw.net.au/2011/02/principles-for-open-public-sector.html

I have set this as an assignment for my e-government students: http://cs.anu.edu.au/courses/COMP7420/

Perhaps we could provide education on how to run a country and free open source templates, complete with software. The citizens of a country could select from options as to the style of government they would like and the software would provide a template for a constitution, all the laws required and systems for running the country. This could include options for direct and deliberative online democracy.

I think you may be under the impression that Switzerland, with its ultra-democratic referenda, has all the answers, King Hazza.

>>...voters themselves lack many democratic rights and powers the average Swiss citizen enjoys, we are therefore less democratic.<<

The problem with referenda such as the Swiss employ is that they encourage introversion. Which - while it might be seen as a "good thing" for the individual wielding their democratic rights - tends after a time to isolate the country from the real world.

Taking the last few as examples:

- February 2011: voted down restrictions on firearms

Associated Press described the Swiss as a nation where “the right to bear arms is firmly linked to the national myth of William Tell … and to Swiss pluck against the Nazis during World War II,”

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/6331-swiss-voters-turn-back-gun-control-referendum

The latter also being a myth, of course. Unless by "pluck against the Nazis" they meant the determination to profit financially from the hardship of almost every other European during the war.

- November 2010: automatic deportation of foreign criminals

20% of the Swiss population are foreigners, so this was a significant step.

"The proposal, put forward by the right-wing Swiss People's Party (SVP), is seen as the latest sign of increasing hostility towards immigrants in the Alpine nation."

http://www.euractiv.com/en/global-europe/eu-cautious-over-swiss-vote-expel-foreign-criminals-news-500108

What it achieves is to reinforce the isolationism with which the country has always been associated. Which is fair enough, as long as you don't need the rest of the world's respect. How much is that worth in Swiss Francs anyway?

December 2009: ban minarets

Eight million Swiss. Five percent of whom are Muslims. There are four minarets in the entire country. Was this about architecture, do you think?

The tendency recently has also been to prevent the government from cost-reduction (closing underutilized post offices), and to award themselves taxpayer handouts ((paid maternity leave).

Y'know, it would be hard to find a population so completely inwardly-focussed as the Swiss.

Especially when there's a buck to be made.

From about now on government will become increasingly local.
It will probably take, if we are lucky, 50 years.
The Transition Town Movement is demonstrating the path we will follow.
However if the systems people are right then complex structures such
as the world economy cannot fail gently but only by systemic failure.
Lets hope they are not right.

Globalisation is ending but will probably take 10 years to die.
In the end National governments will fade to be a shadow of their
present image and government will be very local.

All this may be varied by breakthroughs such as Thorium Reactors if
they can be made to work, but it is by no means a certainty.
However the trend is unstoppable.
Read this for a glimpse of the future;

http://www.postcarbon.org/article/254838-earth-s-limits-why-growth-won-t-return

Ahhh here it is, the article I was trying to find;

Complex systems and what happened in Egypt. Says it all !
Food prices and why they face starvation democracy or not.

http://www.postcarbon.org/blog-post/250866-egypt-s-warning-are-you-listening

No problem with any of these with me Pericles,
If the public decides they want to risk shooting themselves with firearms, that's their call- if things go badly, they can still decide whether its worthwhile.
And to be quite honest I happen to agree with the deportation policy, and consider local residents deciding what architectural forms they will tolerate to be a basic human right as a resident.

It boils down to which rights and values society weighs as more important, and which excesses they would rather have.

A nation with no allies whatsoever feels that drafting all men into military service with no chance of warzone deployment, and owning extra rifles to fend off an attacking force at risk of people gunning each other down: is better than to bow and scrape to a corrupt but powerful nation and send soldiers to fight in illegal wars and put themselves high on the hitlist of avenging terrorists- possibly pandering to the point that they happily let that nation prey on citizens like Assange in order to buy their mercy.

For the deportation law, they trade the rights of family members of the convicted offender to retain residence, against either separating them, or otherwise against their own domestic security and prosperity of a potential long-term crime problem being instantly neutralized.

The right of citizens to veto construction overrides the right of free enterprise to do or build whatever you like at the detriment to everyone else.

And singling out minarets on a national level means that the public would sooner alienate more devout Muslims (but possibly not-so-devout) and reap the potential benefits of doing so, against holding themselves to a specific sense of liberal morality and accepting that this must endure making their country an attractive target for fundamentalist immigrants, and risking hard lobbying pressure against rights they don't agree with, and internal hostility.

Hazza,

As I understand it, some cantons in Switzerland have only just recognised the right of women to vote ? i.e. allowed men to completely monopolise what gets put up to plebiscites and referenda ? Maybe democracy for some is worse than no democracy at all ?

Joe

That doesn't surprise me at all, King Hazza.

>>No problem with any of these with me Pericles<<

I was simply trying to illustrate what a sad society can be constructed from a licence to be supremely selfish, via unrestricted access to a ballot box on any and all topics.

>>It boils down to which rights and values society weighs as more important, and which excesses they would rather have<<

Not sure what you mean by "excesses" in this context. The only excess I can detect is one of "me, me, me". If that is your idea of how society should operate "democratically", then we most certainly would get the government we deserve.

We'd be out of the traps like a greyhound at the Sandown Cup, banning burkas, vetoing mosques, repealing GST, electing Darryl Somers as president of our brand-new republic, sending boat-people "back where they came from", cancelling all foreign aid, bringing in a one-child-only policy - it'll be sheer paradise, you'll see.

I am usually an outspoken critic of snout-in-the-trough gravy-train politicians and jobs-for-life, jobs-for-the-boys public servants. But rather than let your ideas of fairness and freedom run the country, King Hazza, I'd be prepared to support them for a little bit longer.

Hazza,

Democracy also means that, given a free and fair election, one person-one vote, that the party or group or candidate that you favour might not get elected. In a democracy there are losers as well as winners. You cop it and move on.

You can't always get what you want :) Even in the 'best' democracies.

Joe

Loudmouth:
Your first point about womens' sufferage is quite good, but I may have a potential answer for that- being labor shortages during depressions and during conflicts helped to force employers and government to start accepting women as equals- lacking these when the rest of the world was modernizing gives no reason for laws to be granted kicking and screaming from perfect voter comfort (and that is indeed a downside- when you have full voting rights, you don't want to compromise them).

And to answer your second question, nope! The part where people vote for someone I don't like is fine- that's what democracy is, as you said.
It's the fact that we don't get to vote on anything else for the next three years that could be fixed. Last time we ever got a say in anything in between was the 1999 Republic- and I'm sure a lot of people across the country would have liked a referendum on something in their community.

Pericles- some problems with that theory:
1- you would require people to willingly vote for something that oppresses themselves in those outlandish cases
2- You assume that politicians would have any hesitation to do unto minorities that a large swath of the public do, or won't simply pander to their votes (and in doing so, get to throw in some other nasty surprises people will tolerate as a tradeoff- in DD, those at least wouldn't happen).
3- On a selfish me-me setting, a direct-democracy would require that at least 11 million selfish people benefit from policy, instead of what suits about 40 parliamentarians or a couple of donating lobbyists.
4- History proves a lot less than people willingly voting for these (but have voted to give Aboriginal land rights).
5- Wars, privatizations, APEC/WYD, terminating infrastructure, closing hospitals and schools to sell the properties, have an easy time in one system but are virtually impossible to implement in the other.
6- The swinging voters on the fringe of society, and fringe politicians (Family First) get the final say.

Take your pick.

Hazza,

Your # 4: the 1967 Referendum was not a vote on land rights, but on transferring powers to the commonwealth from the states, to count Aboriginal people in the national Census, and to make laws for Aboriginal people just as it made laws for all other Australians.

By the way, this May 27 will mark 44 years since the Referendum. I think voters had to be 21 back then. So come May 27, everybody who votes in the Referendum will be at least 65. Where did those years go ?

So few people under, say, 55, will have much memory of how bad conditions were for Indigenous people up to the sixties - how undemocratic life was for Indigenous people. God knows what their fate would have been under some form of Swiss herrenvolk 'democracy'.

History has to be learnt and re-learnt, doesn't it, it isn't passed down genetically. And if it isn't taught, it most likely won't be learnt.

Joe

Which ones are "outlandish", King Hazza?

>>...you would require people to willingly vote for something that oppresses themselves in those outlandish cases<<

Apart from Darryl Somers, each example came from sincere offerings from this Forum. And seemed to have gathered some momentum here, too.

>>a direct-democracy would require that at least 11 million selfish people benefit from policy<<

Not sure where you get eleven million from. Even your beloved Swiss system only requires a simple majority. And even there, typically less than 50% will be bothered to turn out.

But there is more to it than that. Take the most recent Swiss poll on firearm reform.

48% of the electorate voted.

The German-speaking cantons rejected the reforms, the French-speaking cantons were pro-reform

Men rejected the reforms. Women supported them.

Can that be described as "better democracy"?

Or, take the undercard of the anti-Muslim vote in 2009. The proposal was to "ban the export of military weapons and ammunition, in order to further reduce Switzerland's involvement in war."

You'd think, in "neutral" Switzerland, this would be a no-brainer... except, of course! It would have meant losing trade.

Money or peace. Peace, or money... now that's a no-brainer.

53% turnout. 68% rejected it. Quelle surprise!

Or, as the majority of Swiss would say, Was für eine Überraschung!

But the main issue to me isn't the relative equity of the process. It is the impact it has on people, and what sort of human being it turns them into.

On the evidence, I'd say it was soul-destroying.

Or at the very least, highly corrosive.

Loudmouth- considering the only boost to indigenous rights as gaining recognition as citizens occurred under a referendum, I wouldn't be so sure.

Pericles, outlandish would be voting for a one-child policy upon yourself.

11 million = about half of Australian voters if the referendum were compulsory. Less people would assumably be an abstention by the rest- of which they would arguably be happy leaving it to the people with an opinion of it (but actually HAVE the right to the input if they choose)- it still means quite a few million more expected beneficiaries than required under a representative-only system.

And yes- a better ratio than 99.99999% opposing a policy that suits the 0.00001% in high places, don't you think?

And apparently, in your book, selling arms is ok so long as if ever a war breaks out, we join in the killing- but sitting out is the evil option?
(out of curiosity, what SHOULD a neutral country do in a war? You seem to feel that unless it bunkers up cuts all contact with the outside world until it boils over is the only acceptable discourse)

And "soul destroying?" I suppose sending soldiers to fight, kill and die in illegal wars, AND abandoning citizens' rights for the purpose of sucking up to another country, denying people the right to euthanasia because some ratbag lobbyists doesn't like it, converting our cities into police-states to hold a private function, and tearing down public schools and hospitals, leaving the locals screwed, because of political corruption attempting to flog off some waterfront properties to developers didn't quite bring a tear to your eye as much as banning aesthetic towers on specific religious buildings and strict criminal-deportation laws?

Actually, Hazza, Aboriginal people, and all adults born in Australia, were recognised as citizens under the Citizenship Act 1948. The Referendum of 1967 was just one incident in a long and diverse procession of citizenship rights, equal rights, granted since 1901.

Here in SA, for example, the right to live in towns and cities was extended in about 1958 (more like a recognition that the earlier attempts to keep people out had completely failed anyway).

The ban on Aboriginal women associating with white men was lifted in 1962 under the old Playford government.

Don Dunstan set up the Aboriginal Lands Trust in 1966 with an Aboriginal head.

The power of police and medical officers to demand that Aboriginal people submit to random health inspections ceased in about 1971.

The stipulation that an Aboriginal convicted of murder was to be taken back to the scene of the crime and hanged there was abolished in 1971.

There was quite a steady flow of extension of citizenship and land rights up to the nineties. More infamously, dumb-@rse lawyers and frankly ignorant Aboriginal groups actually surrendered rights of entry onto pastoral leases and Crown lands that they had had since 1836: whereas people had had free entry onto such lands, now Aboriginal people have to apply to a committee for permission. That's progress, I guess, the right to stuff up your own rights.

Joe

Good points Loudmouth.

I have just watched tonights 4 Corners program on coal seam gas extraction in Chinchilla in Qld, and the Hunter Valley in NSW.

Never have I seen a more disgraceful episode of Corporate exploitation than this abomination.
AGL in NSW and QGC in Qld are the subject of this program

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2011/s3141787.htm

I suggest all those that have any faith in Democracy or Capitalism or Govt observe it doing it's stupidest work.

This process has already destroyed large parts of the U.S. and now they are doing it here.

Belly in particular , I think you should watch this program on the ABC's Iview and then consider if the Labor party is that important anymore. Australia is at stake her not just our aquifers and the Great Artesian Basin, but our future and our way of life.

If I was voting in the next NSW election, I would be voting for one of the 20 independent candidates to be fielded in the name of this cause. It shocked me to my activist core. There will be no more of this crap, thank you very much.

thinker you beat me to it. The 4Corners program tonight is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the disproportionate influence of corporations on government policy.

The biggest piece of advice to new democracies would have to be:

Never take democracy for granted. To prevent the inevitable gradual creeping corporatism, establish a strong foundation for democracy at the grass roots level. Early on, set up the framework for an open and transparent government with strong governance and ethical principles which are more than window dressing. From the get go, ensure all those vital checks and balances are in the system that support that aim.

Your arithmetic needs some attention, King Hazza.

>>a direct-democracy would require that at least 11 million selfish people benefit from policy<<

Even if voting were compulsory, it only requires a little over six million to get a bill across the line.

Your assumption all along seems to be that we currently have no voice at all.

>>And yes- a better ratio than 99.99999% opposing a policy that suits the 0.00001% in high places, don't you think?<<

Do you really believe that? Or are you just blowing smoke?

Incidentally, it is not my opinion on policy that is at issue here.

>>And apparently, in your book, selling arms is ok so long as if ever a war breaks out, we join in the killing- but sitting out is the evil option?<<

That particular motion has been presented a number of times, indicating some level of local concern that arms-dealing is inappropriate for a "neutral" country. It has consistently been rejected, indicating that the Swiss prefer money to ethics.

My position on selling arms is irrelevant, especially since my country does not pretend to be "neutral". If Switzerland had chosen to align itself against the Nazis, instead of working assiduously on their behalf, their position on arms dealing would also be irrelevant.

>>out of curiosity, what SHOULD a neutral country do in a war?<<

That is a surprisingly intelligent question. I imagine that it should remain neutral, rather than hide behind a profession of indifference, while actively operating as a privileged partner of an evil regime.

What do you think constitutes neutrality?

And your description of the current political climate is interesting.

>>...sending soldiers to fight, kill and die in illegal wars, AND abandoning citizens' rights for the purpose of sucking up to another country, denying people the right to euthanasia because some ratbag lobbyists doesn't like it, converting our cities into police-states to hold a private function, and tearing down public schools and hospitals, leaving the locals screwed, because of political corruption attempting to flog off some waterfront properties to developers...<<

Are you sure you wouldn't prefer to live somewhere... nicer?

"Even if voting were compulsory, it only requires a little over six million to get a bill across the line. "
Do explain (putting aside that this is still approximately 5,999,950 more than who currently needs to pass it.

"Your assumption all along seems to be that we currently have no voice at all."
I don't recall being asked if I wanted Australia to join Iraq or privatize Telstra.
We don't even get to directly elect our executive branch of government, nor are we even allowed to vote for candidates outside our local area to act as proxies to vote in the government on our behalf.
Without CIR this wouldn't be such a big deal, but lacking any of the above our input into government is limited unless we privately lobby- which I can't exactly regard as an ethical alternative.

"My position on selling arms is irrelevant, especially since my country does not pretend to be "neutral""
Thought so. So selling arms is ok as long you avoid tricky labels that outsiders feel obligates you to isolate yourself completely.

What I think constitutes 'neutrality' is simple- not allying with any side by not joining a war- quite simple and admirable really. You still haven't given a more precise definition of 'neutral' (although implied that it shouldn't have been so at all). Out of curiosity, do you harbor this much animosity to Japan, Finland, Italy and Sweden?

And let me be explicit.
The Iraq and Afghanistan invasion, APEC/WYD city shutdowns, our Euthanasia policy, and the closure of numerous schools, hospitals and mental hospitals across Sydney by the NSW state government to sell the land to private buyers against local wishes- neither particularly happening in Switzerland, and definitely unlikely to happen here if CIR existed.
But you don't seem to mind all of THESE things being done in your name? Or at least consider them slightly worse than banning minarets and having harsh deportation laws?

And as I like the weather, I will remain right here thankyou very much.

Should be compulsory viewing Pelican. I hope Peter Hume was watching.

The growth of corporate power and the lack of regulations is alarming. They're not just greedy, they are greedy and reckless lunatics. The people are going to have to demand an immediate banning of coal fracking to make any difference on this one.

This is a massive problem already in the U.S. with possibly permanent damage to their water table. Who knows what the consequences will be in the long term.

it is insane.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40135664/ns/us_news-environment/

We seem to have become bogged down in mathematical trivia, King Hazza.

>>"Even if voting were compulsory, it only requires a little over six million to get a bill across the line." Do explain<<

There are approximately twelve million voters on the electoral roll, so to achieve a majority for your self-centred motion would require ((numberonelectoralroll/2)+1). Which according to my trusty calculator (add ten, carry one) works out to a little over six million.

You're still hung up about your lack of voice, I see.

>>that this is still approximately 5,999,950 more than who currently needs [sic] to pass it<<

I'd be interested to hear who are the fifty folk who get to pass bills in the present setup. From memory, about six million voted for the current government and their green/independent hangers-on.

>>I don't recall being asked if I wanted Australia to join Iraq or privatize Telstra.<<

That's probably because you don't read the election manifestos. Don't blame you. Nor do I. But you'd have to have your head in the sand not to realize that is what governments do: send people off to war, and privatize public assets.

(Seriously, did you not see the Telstra thing coming? Wow)

>>So selling arms is ok as long you avoid tricky labels that outsiders feel obligates you to isolate yourself completely.<<

As I may have mentioned, my opinion is irrelevant. It is an issue for the Swiss people. If you are asking what I would do if I were a Swiss citizen being asked to vote on it, I'd do what the majority of Swiss people appear to have done.

Pretend not to notice it, and hope no-one asks me again.

>>Out of curiosity, do you harbor this much animosity to Japan, Finland, Italy and Sweden?<<

Strangely enough, no.

At least the Japanese were clear about their ambitions. Finland defended itself as best it could. Sweden didn't hide stolen money and goods that it could use after the War. And Italy - was Italy neutral?

Why didn't anyone tell Mussolini?

thinker2
I didn't watch it, but the problem with your general criticism of capitalism is that it takes no account of the contribution to the problem by government. You just look at anything you don't like, and declare that the problem is "capitalism".

For example, I understand that the problem with coal seam gas extraction you are concerned about is private corporations polluting public lands and waters. In other words, under the current system, private interests can capitalise their profits, and socialise their losses.

What you and Pelican fail to understand is that this is not caused by capitalism, it's caused by *socialism*. They're not polluting their own property, they're polluting property held by the government on the basis of *your* assumption that it is necessary and desirable for government to manage such property. Then when you see the disproof of your own belief, you don't recognise it, and externalise the blame for your *incorrect* belief that government is good at managing these resources.

But it gets worse. You have not answered my question as to the alternative to capitalism because you know very well that the INEVITABLE result of complete government control of the economy would be far worse both economically and environmentally.

Since full socialism cannot work, and since socialists like you keep trying, through democracy, to replace capitalism with socialism, the INEVITABLE result is what we've got. The kind of corporate corruption you decry is not intrinsically caused by a system based on private property, under which it would be illegal, but by *your* idea that arbitrary forced political redistributions of property, and holding property in common,are good and noble and fair and productive and legitimate and acceptable.

Since your only method for discerning the economic truth of your beliefs is socialist economic theory, what makes you think you're not mistaken?

Sorry- was later at night- the two digit remainder would be parliament, and the "but that's what parliament is for" line is my point:
In a decision of public interest being held at the decision of representatives only, there is absolutely nothing to stop the 50 senators, or 80 parliamentarians who find an arrangement that personally suits themselves, but not the public, and going ahead with it. If this arrangement would have happened differently in a referendum they weren't exactly 'representing their constituents' were they? Instead a bad lopsided policy that suits the few in a position to pass it passes and everyone else pays for it.
In a system where the public are allowed to vote- every single citizen has the right to a say, but does not so purely out of their own will.
And I should point out that you don't exactly get a parliament by majority of votes either- you get a largest-minority-mandate per electoral seat, and majority-per-seat mandate to elect government on our behalf.
Hence why our democratic capacities aren't as large as they could be.

And on the issue of selling arms, if we were to find out our own nation is selling arms (and we are to a small degree), would you not want a referendum on it also? You seem to conveniently ignore that because that country chooses not to, you ignore that they still CAN.

And those countries I selected were all Axis nations (minus Sweden).
So your opposition does, it seems, boil down to not so much what the countries DID, or the issue of cooperating with an abhorrent regime on its own, but by doing bad-guy things without TELLING US they were going to be the 'bad guys' (despite still being not as bad as the Germans, Austrians, Russians and Japanese were- all of which non-democratic autocracies with extensive war-crimes before and during WW2).

And I must ask- does your casual response to the elected government taking us to wars imply little 'soul-destroying' occurring within you?

Curiouser and curiouser, King Hazza.

I suspect we have wandered far from the point, but I would like to comment on one more element of your "Switzerland Forever" paean.

>>...those countries I selected were all Axis nations (minus Sweden)<<

Finns, I suspect, would be extremely unhappy with your cavalier categorization.

Finland was the subject of a hidden clause in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, in which Germany basically "allocated" Finland to Russia. With this tucked in their back pocket, the Russians proceeded to invade Finland. After losing some territory (this is an extremely abbreviated account, with just the highlights) Finland turned to Nazi Germany - the country who only a couple of years earlier had sold them down the river - for help.

It was only after another Russian incursion that Finland officially went to war. Supporting the Nazis, against Russia.

By 1944 the position changed again. Having fought them to a standstill, Finland arranged an armistice with Russia, and began to fight against the Nazis.

I think maybe your sweeping generalization that Finland was "an axis nation" might require some reassessment.

It is complex, gut-wrenching stories like these that put Switzerland's deceitful pretence at neutrality in perspective.

And you do spend a lot of time imagining and inventing stuff that you think I should relate to.

>>So your opposition does, it seems, boil down to not so much what the countries DID, or the issue of cooperating with an abhorrent regime on its own, but by doing bad-guy things without TELLING US they were going to be the 'bad guys'<<

No it doesn't. Stop trying to read between the lines - let's face it, you're not very good at it - and instead confine yourself to what is actually written.

But you would be close, were you to conclude that I can see no honour whatsoever in a country that uses the deception of faux-neutrality to enrich itself at the expense of those who were actually out there fighting for something they believed in.

King Hazza,

While it is hard to condone some of the things that the Swiss have done, I doubt if they would tolerate as much misery and homelessness among their mentally ill fellow citizens as we do. People who live in glass houses ... Pericles believes in open borders, so would condemn the Swiss for keeping foreigners out or deporting them, even if they were above reproach in every other aspect.

In his ideal world, there would be no point in people aspiring to any more than would be afforded in the poorest, worst managed Third World country. This is because if the residents of a country do work to improve conditions, large numbers of foreigners will converge on them to horn in on what they have. After all, it is much easier to latch onto someone else's ready-made higher standard of living than it is to undertake the hard and sometimes dangerous work of fixing up your own society. If the existing residents object, then they need to be held down for it by wise philosopher kings who are insulated from any personal problems by the wealth they have acquired after years of snouts in troughs.

As Pericles said in opposing CIR:

"I was simply trying to illustrate what a sad society can be constructed from a licence to be supremely selfish, via unrestricted access to a ballot box on any and all topics."

The idea that politicians are not self-serving is laughable, as is the idea that we are responsible for what the politicians do, e.g. invade Iraq. Because we cannot vote on issues, we have to accept package deals, and they don't need to tell us all they plan to do. The politicians are perfectly free to lie to us before the election and then do something completely different afterwards. Consumer protection laws don't apply to them. If we live in a safe seat and don't agree with the majority, we are effectively disenfranchised. This is why a party can win an election while having a smaller share of the popular vote.

Sincerely Peter, I am not suggesting for a minute that socialism is the answer, but I am suggesting that Govt needs to represent it's people better than it currently does. I am also suggesting that business interests are over-represented.

And as for private land and resource ownership, I think we all have an interest in the environment. I can only think of my next door neighbour whom I refer to as "have chain saw will travel" and given the chance to make unbridled decisions would saw every tree down that he could get his hands on to feed his fire place. In addition he would exterminate any creature, particularly endangered reptiles that crossed his path and feel completely justified.

It shows that he is not to bright in my view and a dinosaur.
Poison sprays, guns and power tools he's got the lot, and thank heavens there is at least some restraint placed upon this nuffie, protecting the rest of us from such people.

Your right Peter I have no alternative to capitalism , but are you advocating untethered control by capitalism, because if your are then your quite mad.

Those gas companies are being knowingly destructive with there partners in crime, Govt, against humanity and the planet and even the sub strata.
It is truly stomach turning.

Who is most culpable Govt or business?, in my view both are equally culpable.

Peter
If I can add, capitalism like any system is not perfect, it is what human beings do with it, that can be for better or worse.

Capitalism like any ideology/system either works for the betterment of the people within a democratic framework, or it can be the unfettered capitalism version which serves only a small elite. What we are experiencing is a growing influence of corporations in government policy decisions.

This is not a discussion about socialism vs capitalism. Socialism can also be easily subverted away from the collective good if there are no checks in the system, and where there is a growing and controlling elite. In some cases it is a different package but with similar outcomes. Ideally IMO a system should seek the best balance of collective and individual good/rights, albeit in that process a consensus is not always easy to come by.

I do not advocate a socialist Australia but some of the principles inherent in socialism can be adapted for best use within a capitalist framework. The issue is unfettered capitalism, lack of appropriate regulation and failure to etend democracy to the grass roots.

Thinker 2
I am glad that you understand that on one level coercive socialism is not better.

I hope you understand that it’s not even possible, not even in theory. The reason is because the whole purpose of socialism is to abolish the market for capital goods. In doing so it abolishes prices on capital goods, which in turn abolishes the possibility of economic calculation. The *necessary* result is economic chaos – in other words, misplaced priorities.

This problem applies *always and necessarily* applies whenever government overrides private property in favour of common property and forced redistributions; regardless whether it’s called “democracy”.

For example, in NSW, on the basis of your belief that everyone should have a right to an equal say in “the environment”, government assumes control of minerals and aquifers. They licence mining companies – for a fee of course - to explore and mine, on government's terms. They forbid private interests from owning the aquifers.

Now remember, you are in favour of this.

Socialism means the public ownership and control of the means of production, so you are in favour of minerals-and-aquifers-socialism.

But then you look at the resulting misplaced priorities, and instead of blaming your own support of socialism, you blame “unfettered capitalism”. BUT THE CAPITALISM ISN’T UNFETTERED, THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT.

If it was unfettered, mining companies wouldn’t have a right to explore or mine anyone else’s land without the owner’s consent, because capitalism means *private property*. And instead of the groundwaters being protected by bureaucrats who have no financial interest in a successful outcome, and who suffer no negative consequences for making wrong, even very wrong decisions, aquifers would be aggressively defended by private owners with an interest in maintaining their value, just as land is.

So while on the one hand you can see that a voluntary society would be better, on the other you keeping thinking that coercive socialism must provide a better solution. But the problems you’re looking at aren’t caused by unfettered capitalism, they’re caused by unfettered SOCIALISM. And calling it “democracy” MAKES NO ECONOMIC DIFFERENCE.

Pelican

“Ideally … a system should seek the best balance of collective and individual good/rights”

You assume that there is an intrinsic conflict of interest between voluntary individual action, and society in general. Prove it?

Voluntary relations are mutually advantageous, otherwise they wouldn’t take place. On the other hand, violence-based relations – the ones you are in favour of - are a zero-sum game – the stronger takes from the weaker and value is destroyed.

You assume that government represents the people more and better than the people represent themselves. There is no evidence or reason for this brainwashed belief.

You have said in the past that the problem is “unregulated markets”. Yet when I asked you to name ONE market that was unregulated, you couldn’t. Still waiting. So it is dishonest of you to persist in saying that the problem is “unfettered capitalism”.

“I do not advocate a socialist Australia”

Yes you do. You constantly advocate big government and criticize capitalism on the basis of socialist assumptions that have no basis in evidence or reason.

You think the government should direct labour, capital, interest, profits, mining, aquifers, farming, forests, health, roads, railways, electricity, people’s personal preferences, housing, lands, waters, air, all manufacturing, foreign investment, etc. etc. etc. . You think everyone in the population should be compulsorily indoctrinated by government.

So are you confused or just dishonest?

“ Socialism can also be easily subverted away from the collective good if there are no checks in the system, and where there is a growing and controlling elite.”

Socialism is not possible in theory or practice, so it is *completely wrong* to believe that socialism is in any way consistent with the collective good.

Attempts to bring about socialism *cause* elitist society and economic wrongdoing. The problems you are looking at are caused by YOU AND PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH YOU.

“but some of the principles inherent in socialism can be adapted for best use within a capitalist framework.”

Your economic ignorance is no excuse for your unethical belief that society is improved by institutionalized violence and stealing.

The capacity to mobilise power should not direct our society.

Be it electoral, military or economic, restraint is recommended.

Too many people know how to debase our society by merely "illegal" activity. The redirection of money by drug production, the capacity to undermine military might by biological or chemical means, to undermine electoral power by founding yet another trumped-up religion directing a voting block. To generate fear by terrorism.

If those with a capacity to undermine use it, those with alternate means might oppose.

We do not want such a war. There are more people able to make war gases than there are pastors to misinform their flock.

Democracy works when people use their electoral capacity with due regard for more than their own issues. Particularly those as trivial as mere religion, over which many wars have been fought.

Rusty.

"The capacity to mobilise power should not direct our society."

Well that rules out politics as a way of directing society, doesn't it?

And wouldn't it be nice if politics were more about principles and policies rather than just whatever it takes to satisfy identifiable voting or funding blocs sufficient to be elected?

Rusty

The state is not an institution that is made for being nice, or caring, or social justice, or principles. It's about power and, in the case of a democratic state, demagoguery. It is about nothing but expedience - the opposite of principles. All the politicians have to offer is different forms of anti-social grabbing and lying,.

Democracy is antithetical to the institution of private property since, if everyone has an equal say in whether they should be able to help themselves to other people's property, no-one's property is safe, and politics just becomes an unprincipled scramble for mutual plunder, which precisely describes the state of the modern democracies. Economic modernisation has happened in the democracies *despite*, not *because of* democracy.

Democracy is also inherently unstable because it keeps tending closer and closer to socialism which does not and cannot work.

The idea of checks on government, *by* government, is obviously laughable and unworkable. We have only to read the Constitution of the USA to see what a failure this idea has been in practice. (Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution mention the word 'democracy'. The founding father'sthought it anathema.)

The western democracies, and especially the USA, have a record of chronic aggressive war. Australia is involved in two at the present time; yet it is a non-issue in general.

The monetary policy of the western democracies has also been made an institution of the general confiscation of private property, to fund the instant-grat schemes of governments pandering to the infantile narcissistic sense of entitlement to something for nothing which democracy enables. These inflationary schemes have worked untold economic and social damage, and debauched the value system of the population in favour of consumerism, debt and entitlement to enslave others.

Events in the Middle East show people rejecting the thieving and corruption of the state. If they know what's good for them, they will agitate for less government, not more democracy.

Peter I don't suppose you have been paying attention to the content matter discussed so far have you?

And you do realize that the "nobody's property is safe" line falls apart embarrassingly when you realize that the voters would be aware that what they permit in legislation to 'private property' very much applies to their own?

The only danger to private interests is that they would have to answer to far higher regulation, unless everyone in the society were libertarian at heart.

Your dooms-day scenario would only occur, alternatively, if you have a direct-democracy stocked entirely full of staunch communal socialists- in which case the 'private property' circumstance would be highly unlikely to begin with in their situation.

Haz,

Probably the nearest thing we currently have to direct democracy would be at the local government level, municipal or shire or district or city etc. councils. I've never been to a council meeting, but I get the idea that the discussions there rarely touch on the communalising of property :)

Joe

>Peter I don't suppose you have been paying attention to the content matter discussed so far have you?

Hazza I don’t suppose you have?

>And you do realize that the "nobody's property is safe" line falls apart embarrassingly when you realize that the voters would be aware that what they permit in legislation to 'private property' very much applies to their own?

In case you haven’t noticed, the voters have no power to permit or not permit legislation (apart from referendums). We are compelled to vote, the laws against deceptive conduct do not apply to politicians or governments, and if they do not pass legislation the majority voted for, or do pass legislation the majority voted against, you have no remedy whatsoever. The same or a different party can do exactly the same next time around.

It is a complete furphy to identify the population with the electorate.

Income is taxed, capital gains are taxed, spending is taxed, buying land is taxed, buying cars is taxed multiple times, retirement income is taxed, fuel, tobacco, liquor are taxed, providing goods in kind is taxed, virtually all occupations are taxed - how can you deny that no-one's property is safe from the greed of the statists?.

Regulation of property rights is just forced redistribution by another name. To order the owner to do or not do something with his property is in substance to control it. We do in fact have thoroughgoing socialism now – what market is *not* regulated? - it’s just that the population, brainwashed into believing the lie that “we” are the state, and that forced redistributions are not socialism and are necessary and good, don’t notice.

Just as when local governments spend most of their time deciding whether property owners shall be permitted to use their property, Loudmouth doesn’t notice that this in effect to socialise their property.

Looks like you’re in favour of voluntary society, so long as you don’t have to give up ordering people to obey you?

Sorry, in my last post that should read:
"It is a complete furphy to identify the population with the legislature".

Peter I fully understand the truth in your some of your views, but I don't understand the point.

If we are too allow the free (so called) market economy to determine our destiny, won't stealth capitalists such as China continue to manipulate world economics through currency settings etc anyway, thereby undermining the validity of the Rand like theories you express.

Do you think there should be no free lunches for the underprivileged?. If so how is the good or even for the greater good served ?, unless your trying reduce human population this way,
or increase world conflict and hardship.

Forum posters have been bringing forward examples of business doing even catastrophic things in the name of profits alone, without Gov't (particularly our own) on both sides of politics paying much attention(on our behalf) at all.

No regulations preventing multinational gas giants from pumping 26 untested chemical carcinogens into our aquifers and the great artesian basin. People will have to stand independent candidates and get them elected to have any peoples, or immediate landowning victims individual voices heard. Who speaks for affected flora or fauna in your capitalist free for all model, or future generations in this example?.

Who started this business or Govt. Business of course with State Govt's acquiescing by changing laws suitable to the shareholders of these Companies, not the people of Australia it's ecology or future. Your right Peter Govt stinks, but big business reeks

"Just as when local governments spend most of their time deciding whether property owners shall be permitted to use their property, Loudmouth doesn’t notice that this in effect to socialise their property."

Peter, with respect, I think you are mistaken: can you give examples of when and where councils have socialised anybody's property ? Can you give us any details about roughly what proportion of council meetings' time is taken up plotting how to take over ratepayers' property ? No offence but that sounds a bit paranoid :) If there was the slightest hint that a council, wouldn't there be marches in the streetsd, or at least packed council meetings from then on ?

Joe

Loudmouth, short answer is Peter is probably a libertarian and anything down to having to pay taxes, fund infrastructure or obey the law or regulations of conduct is akin to communist fascism and in his eyes, nothing more than an unreasonable attempt to suppress him.
Of course, realizing nobody else sees it that way, he needs to add more flare and drama by adding words like "socialism".

But to answer you last post, that is indeed pretty much the case.
In the local debates/voting- there has never been a conspiracy by the wicked plebs to steal somebody's private business- nor is it ever likely (unless that business were formerly a public-owned to begin with, and also reigning over public infrastructure like roads, public rail, water or something).

Hazza, Loudmouth, thinker2

None of you has joined issue yet.

Hazza’s post is a veritable welter of fallacies:
• misrepresentation (note: no-one is arguing that there should be no regulation of conduct you fool)
• mind-reading (telling me what I think)
• *assuming* without proving what is in issue (that any given act of government represents the people better than the people represent themselves, and that coerced social relations are better than voluntary ones)
• trying to squirm out of the issues by changing the name of forced expropriations when the *name* of them is irrelevant.

Hazza’s tack is to try to deny that socialization of the means of production is socialism. Fine. Call vesting property in common ownershp and making forced expropriations and redistributions of property what you want. The explosions of your argument’s fallacies follows just the same, leaving you completely unable to defend your arguments, or refute mine.

Hazza does not even try to defend taxes on the basis that they are voluntary: the proposition is obviously false. If they were voluntary, there’d be no need of taxes, would there?, since everyone would just send to Consolidated Revenue a cheque for what they think government “services” are worth, and the total revenue would be the same: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Hazza has swallowed hook, line and sinker the standard statist nostrum that any given action of government represents the community. But the electoral process provides no evidence of this proposition.

Hazza has provided no reason in favour of coerced over voluntary social relations.

But perhaps if you repeat a few fallacies that might work – to satisfy your intellectual standards?

Loudmouth
There are only two possibilities: either you own your life and your property and can deal with them by consent, or someone else does and can deal with you by coercion. Government by definition comprises the latter case. Denying it merely demonsrates your failure to understand what in issue. Give me an example of any governmental action including the actions of local government that is not predicated on, and intended to, forcibly override other people’s property rights?

Thinker2
You reply has advanced the argument any further than where I left it.

Governments already own and control the aquifers. *More* socialism – or whatever you want to call forced redistributions and holding property in common - can only make matters worse not better because:
a) it depends on a presumption of government’s competence which the evidence disproves
b) it must take us *closer* to full socialism where we already know beforehand that the economic and social chaos is greater, not lesser, and non-viable.

You have simply *assumed* what is in issue:
• That the problem is caused by capitalism rather than socialism, and
• That government presumptively fixes everything up, like a god making up for human imperfections
• Without coming to terms with the arguments that show that government must necessarily expand the tragedy of the commons, and spread the economic chaos that is the original rpoblem you are trying to solve by more government control.

The problems with the aquifers is just a re-run of the Russian collectivization of agriculture, which was a complete disaster for all the same reasons. The socialists have learnt NOTHING from the last hundred years.

Your beliefs are unfalsifiable, have you noticed that? If government doesn’t work, the solution is more government?

None of you have even begun to deal with the issues, namely, showing why social relations are better based on coercion than voluntary. You haven’t got to square one. None of your arguments can withstand rational critique. All you’ve done, on your beliefs being challenged and disproved, is to *recirculate* the same old fictions and myths about state power and privilege representing the greater good without any attempt to prove them.

Peter Hume, you want to know what the funny thing is?

"Hazza’s tack is to try to deny that socialization of the means of production is socialism. Fine. Call vesting property in common ownershp and making forced expropriations and redistributions of property what you want."

That your own posts don't even contradict what I said.
Carry on!

I'm not so much hoping for more Gov't Peter, but better Govt. If that is at all possible through democracy. More accountable Gov't, more representative Govt. The same should be expected of Big Business, if we are to progress to a sustainable future.

So therefore as an inevitable truth, Gov't has to, and does play a part in the outcomes of it's constituency, (purportedly the people) re their relationships with Big Business. If we were to allow a completely un-regulated business environment, it is likely we would see a free for all and environmental disaster equivalent to the Socialist Russia experience.

I don't think any evidence is required in support Peter, when assuming that balance is required, and to some degree excepting that coercion is necessary. e.g. Law enforcement. I think that most people above all else, want a sustainable future for themselves and their descendants. I don't think there is any evidence required in support of this assumption either.

My problem when a libertarian debates a socialist is that I believe both of them. Peter Hume couldn't possibly be more cynical about the politicians than I am, but he refuses to address the failings of his own proposed alternative.

A libertarian alternative might work reasonably well in a country where there is still a frontier and people are too few to do serious damage to the environment. People who are unhappy with the way things are going are free to go over the mountain and set up for themselves. (This is why slavery hung on in the New World long after it was abolished in Europe.) But what happens when all of the resources already belong to someone, and the police and army are there to protect his property rights?

Free markets are very good at giving people what they want if they can pay, and what the rich and powerful want is to be more rich and powerful. The owner doesn't need to exert control through the government: the threat of denying people land, water, or food is sufficient, and no one can stop him if he degrades "his" property, by practising forms of agriculture that amount to mining the soil, for example. This is a recipe for a very nasty feudal system.

Peter Hume has repeatedly refused to address this issue. King Hazza's ideas about citizen initiated referenda, on the other hand, would give ordinary people some check on the excesses of both government and the rich.

“I'm not so much hoping for more Gov't Peter, but better Govt.”

Good luck with that, thinker2.

The problem is, there is nothing about the nature of government in the first place, that would give any reason to justify any of the hopes you entertain for it, because you would still need to affirm the proposition that *initiating aggression of itself* will necessarily make for a better society without regard to morality or practicality. Clearly it won’t, and that is before we dispose of the alleged problems of a voluntary society.

The problem is not that the current system is not representative enough, because even if the people’s will were *perfectly* represented, there is intrinsically no reason to think a monopoly of initiating aggression, and legalised theft and fraud, are going to make for a better society.

Thus even perfectly “democratic” – (one vote one value) – input would not be enough. It would need to be constrained by morality which government is intrinsically incapable of providing, because government instrinsically infringes such morality by its very existence.

Yes people want a better life for themselves and their posterity. And yes some coercion is necessary – but only to stop others initiating aggression, not as a general principle of social co-ordination.

Therefore, there is no basis for assuming that government brings any sort of legitimate “balance”, and therefore you have not shown reason against a voluntary society and in favour of coerced society.

Divergence I have never refused to address the issue of the downsides of a free society once let alone repeatedly. But I can’t be boxing with shadows.

People *assume* that a voluntary society would be dreadful and chaotic. But
a) after a minimum of ten years compulsory indoctrination by the state about how selfless and indispensable government is, and
b) drawing all their ideas of the evils of unregulated capitalism from socialist theory and examples under interventionist governments
c) without having given five minutes thought in their whole lives to such issues as how a free society might work
what else would we expect?

For example, feudal society was very highly regulated – by the state. Competition from more efficient businesses was outlawed. People were not free to contract to sell their labour to the highest bidder. The money supply was regulated. Credit was outlawed: etc. etc. etc.

It is a complete furphy to think that the state preserves us from, and a voluntary society threatens us with this state of affairs. The reverse is true.

So you need to do much more to establish that a voluntary society would be dreadful, than merely to say the word “feudal” and expect that to be all the proof you could require.

Similarly, virtually all criticisms of capitalism depend on the idea that employment is instrinsically exploitative, rather than mutually beneficial. This Marxist argument depends on the labour theory of value, which was disproved in the 1890s. The criticisms of capitalism have to actually deal with the real issues, not straw men.

Similarly, thinker2 says that unregulated business would result in a situation like Soviet Russia – the very opposite of a situation of unregulated business! He gives no reason for thinking environmental disaster would actually follow, that does not rely on situations like the aquifers, in which *government* holds the polluted resources in common, surprise surprise.

It is common ground that government leaves a lot to be desired, and we are all sceptical of the chronic corruption, fraud, and incompetence of the political process. But you can’t bring yourself to embrace the idea of freedom, and thus keep falling back into the arms of the state.

I would gladly show the errors of your criticisms of a voluntary society, but first you need come out into the open and actually state them, not just assume them.

Go ahead – prove the exploitativeness and unsustainability of capitalism.

You need to make sure you distinguish problems intrinsic in the nature of private property and voluntary relations, and not simply use “capitalism” as a term of abuse for anything that you don’t like involving business regardless whether or not the behaviour in question is enabled by government.

Back to the Middle East, and the issue as between democracy and freedom, here's a good article right on point: choose freedom, not democracy:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11tyner6.1.1.html

I too believe in civil liberty Peter Hume. The concept of voluntary society is of great interest to me. Human progress is probably historically dependent upon a lack of regulation, there is no doubt in my mind that human creativity is a product of civil liberty not regulation.

But in the modern world that Divergence refers too, I too fear for whats left of the environment Peter, and can't think of a solution other than some sort of peoples input through the Democratic process. Big Business, lack a track record in the area of the environment. There is evidence of that Peter, and I wouldn't know where to start, there is so much of it.

I havent given up on thinking about the possibilities of all, or nearly all people, having a set of basic understandings,(inc Big Business) to which we all live by. It's not a socialist dream Divergence that I would desire, but a social understanding that we all share about what is acceptable and what isn't. It's sort of religious, but without a figurehead, just us and the planet. A belief in the human species in isolation if you like, finally getting it.

I too Peter share your view (if I am interpreting your view correctly), that the human history's most un-creative years have been when Gov't control has been the most influential. E.G WW2 etc. Is there a solution ?, if so what is it ?.

I'm really interested to read your view on this PH.

thinker 2 is right about the environmental issues, and there are other forms of market failure.

I wasn't using "feudal" in the literal sense, just referring to a society where a tiny fraction of the population have almost all the wealth. Even if people start out equal, there will always be some who are more talented, have more business acumen, or are just greedier and more ruthless than the average. Given reasonable luck, such people will a acquire a greater share of the wealth. Once this happens, it becomes easier for them to acquire even more wealth, because they can afford to invest more of their income, can diversify their holdings, and won't be bankrupted by a run of bad luck, such as a serious illness in the family. Eventially, nearly all the resources wind up in very few hands. If someone can deny you shelter, or cut off your food or water, it doesn't matter what the government does. You are just as unfree as you would be in Kim Jong Il's North Korea.

Peter Hume needs to deal with these issues if he wants to be taken seriously.

Thinker2 has only cited examples concerning the environment which are owned and controlled by government, so I don’t see how you can conclude that he is right on those issues; he hasn’t even begun to address them, and neither have you for that matter.

The very issue is as to market failures, so it is no answer to say “and other market failure”. What sort of argument is that? You need to actually make your argument, not just assume it.

It is true that even if people started out equal, they would soon end up unequal, and that people with more wealth can afford more investment.

But the conclusion is not justified that therefore, in a society banning the initiation of aggression “eventually nearly all the resources wind up in very few hands”, nor that there would be class of desperate poor, nor that people would be more unfree than under interventionists government, for a number of reasons.

First, people with wealth don’t need to invest any. They can just consume it all, in which case the masses would be worse off, not better.

Secondly, capitalism is not just a system of profit – it’s a system of profit *and loss*. The only thing that can stop the capitalist from making a loss, is if he combines the factors of production in such a way that *the mass of the people as consumers* consider the final product more valuable – ie better at satisfying their wants – than the original factors were. Far from being exploitative, the system of profit and loss is the process by which the living standards of the masses are raised from the level of subsistence or barter to those of modern civilisation.

Thirdly, profit and loss are the instruments by which the masses exercise the ultimate direction of the course of production. Loss functions to transfers property out of the hands of those capitalists who are not using it to satisfy the wants of the masses as judged by the masses. And profit functions to direct capital so as to *remove the maladjustment* between ...

...where the factors of production are now, and where and how the masses *want* them to be so as to satisfy their most urgent wants and needs - as judged by them, not our political overlords.

Fourthly, the effect of modern capitalism has been to raise the living standards of the ordinary working people to the highest levels in the history of the world. It has also served to disperse capital ownership throughout the population to an unprecedented extent.

In practice, the working poor of the capitalist world are the furthest that any working poor have ever been from the emergencies of subsistence. Everything that retards capital accumulation – including all socialism – has served to *retard* the process by which the poor share in the riches of modernity.

Furthermore while, other things being equal, richer people can afford lower time preferences than poorer people, in reality, other things aren’t equal. Any person with money can be a capitalist by having lower time preferences, and even if this were not true for those at the means of subsistence, it is true for all the working poor in the western world. Most capitalists have not inherited their wealth by built it up by their own savings, work, risk and delayed gratification.

Even if your argument were valid, which it’s not, it would not apply to the vast majority of the population.

Besides, the *greatest inequality* in a free society is not as great as the *east inequality* as between the state and the individual, so even if your argument were valid, which it’s not, it still wouldn’t provide any ground for recourse to government.

Thus it is not true in theory or in practice that the result of a free society must be to create a caste of ultra-rich, and a teeming proletariat at the margins of subsistence. This is mere recitation of fourth-hand Marxist belief systems that have been definitely disproved and exploded in theory and practice over and over and over again.

Go ahead, let’s see you prove how dreadful these other market failures are.

BTW, you have taken no account whatsoever of government failures.

I have taken account of your criticism of the market, so now you should take account of my criticism of government.

Contrary to socialist fables, the economic intervention of government do *not* have the effect of making the masses richer. They have the effect of making them *poorer*, because all government intervention
a) re-directs the process by which the masses direct the course of production to satisfy their most urgent wants; for the benefit of politicians and their pet favourites
b) retards the process by which a greater surplus is available to fund higher living standards from a given level of inputs
c) is thus also worse for the environment for a given standard of living
d) actively causes unemployment by illegalizing employment at the market rate
e) actively promotes poverty, sickness, divorce, step-parenthood and dependence
f) creates special privileges both on the right and the left wing through the process of forced redistribution of the fruits of other people’s labour
g) causes the cycle of speculative boom and depressing bust by manipulating the supply of money and credit
h) fund aggressive war to gratify the vested interests of big business which otherwise must do something peaceable and constructive to earn a return on capital
i) spreads economic chaos into everything it touches by making economic calculation impossible
j) cause environmental destruction by spreading the tragedy of the commons
k) spreads the immoral idea that fraud and stealing are fine – so long as you’re the PM
l) “and other government failures”

Just temporarily assuming for argument's sake that my argument is correct – just think of the standard of living that the ordinary people would now enjoy – the health, the environmental standards, the freedom, the arts and sciences, the volunteerism – if 50 percent of the GDP of the western world had not been snorted up the snout of governments and spent on making the masses poorer, and creating a society of privilege, inequality and war directed by the frauds and sociopaths who inhabit our Parliaments!

Let me get this straight- we are comparing a medieval system where land and people were owned PRIVATELY by title holders with a lordly title, against a virtually free capitalist system that only demands people fund infrastructure via taxes (which would need to be funded one way or another), and obey business conduct laws, all of which governed by some form of democracy?

Really?

Thats all fine PH, but the recent GFC is stand alone evidence of market failure and the need for the wealth owned by the taxpayer, to subsidise the failings of the big end of town, ultimately. Even with their thumb in the pie, business has failed to meet the expectations of most people.

On the contrary, your assumption is that Gov't no matter what kind, is bad. This can a least be decided at election time in a democracy. Admittedly choice is limited in a 2 party system to Tweedle dum etc, both alternatives overly influenced by Big Business.

The middle East has seen an explosion of freedom of expression recently, the trouble is what is it?, that follows. Gaddafi claims that Al Queada will rule Libya . Guess it works for the U.S in Afghanistan.

What must follow is more representative Gov't, what's more likely, is more of the same or similar. So Peter I agree with you that something else must replace our understanding of Gov't, but Big Business is the last place I would be going for council re this subject.

To use an uncomfortable expression "this is a known known." Anecdotal evidence ad infinitum is not required. Exploiting the present at the expense of the future is not sustainable, that is another known.

At the very least we need more leadership and less law impeding peoples individual civil liberties. The fact is Peter that people are further away from the capacity for self determination than ever before, with ever increasing manipulation of our attitudes, by Gov't, but equally by Big Business. e.g. Massive anti mining tax advertising campaigns, potent enough too see the deposing of a PM in power.

Both Gov't and Big Businesses are culpable Peter Hume. We, us , the people are also are culpable if we stand idly by, accepting of our position in the pecking order and don't expect to have an influence on our own future, or strive for better leadership.

What else can we do Peter?, I think this is a bigger question that discussing whose fault it is.

Hazza
In those days government itself was privately owned, so this only takes us back to the underlying issue, which is, why should social relations be based on coercion and thievery rather than consent and property?

(Feudal government BTW was also full of the usual blandishments by the political class about how indispensable they are for the general good, how the victims of their predatory parasitism are really beneficiaries – exactly as our contemporary statists spout.)

thinker 2 and Divergence
You face four categories of conceptual difficulties:
1.
Even if your criticisms of capitalism were sound, you are completely unable to say *how* legalized aggression is going to be any moral, economic or pragmatic improvement on the original problem.

Even if we had the most perfectly representative form of government theoretically imaginable, it is clear that the legal power to lie, rob and kill is a social vice, not any kind of virtue. And popular input into how this power is to be wielded, without restraint of morality or practicality, does not and cannot be any improvement on the original problem whatsoever.

2.
But the form of government we have *in practice* is so corruptly far from the theoretically perfect form of government that it’s not funny. This enormous gap between theory and practice leaves you precisely no ground for recourse to government interventions in practice.

3.
Your criticisms of government are *unsound* because you keep on
a) ignoring the role of governments in causing the problems you’re identifying, and
b) assuming they are caused by capitalism without doing a reality or logic check; and
c) when the falsity of your beliefs is pointed out, simply persisting in endlessly repeating this circular and irrational method.

For example, the GFC was a *financial* crisis, and government at all relevant times had *control of the price and supply of money*. Get it?

According to orthodox establishment theory, the reason government had control of the money supply was because government HAS the competence to manage the economy so as to avoid recessions, stabilize prices, and prevent unemployment.

Orthodox theory is obviously wrong, because since the Fed was founded, the US dollar has lost over 95% of its value, we have had the worst depressions in the history of the world, and unemployment in the US is now over 25%. Get it?

On the other hand, libertarian theory says that interest originates in the *subjective time preferences* of all people using money. There is no way that government can know what these are. Its attempts to manage the money supply can only produce planned chaos which is what it does produce. If you force the price of something to be different than the market price, you get surpluses and shortages in all the wrong places – with money, booms and busts. Get it?

So either way you look at it, the GFC is not stand-alone evidence of the irrationality of markets, but proof that government’s manipulation of the money supply produces social, economic and moral evils that are predictable and avoidable.

4.
But there’s a fourth, more profound problem.

There’s no use asking “What else can we do…?” if you permit yourself illogical methods of inquiry. Your intellectual method is to assume what is in issue, to chase your tail around and around in circles. Woolly thinking is not a virtue. You must free yourself from this intellectual vice. Not even you believe the faith you have in government!

Unlike you, I have not just *assumed* what I have proved.

At least Divergence is vaguely aware, and has weakly tried – once - to prove the downside of a free society – but ultimately demonstrated only an ignorance of what he is talking about.

But thinker2 doesn’t even seem to be aware of the intellectual hole he is in. You have *not* shown that the problems of big business are because of big business rather than government.

No-one has yet given any sound reason in favour of democracy rather than freedom from government's meddling in any given area.

www.mises.org

Peter Hume,

Market failure: I was thinking of basic scientific research, but other examples are given in the Wikipedia article by that name.

You seem to think that monopoly of resources will not occur because the elite are nice, public-spirited people (and some are) or because they recognize that even the rich will be better off in the long run in a more equal society. That they would be better off is the position of Wilkinson and Pickett, the authors of “The Spirit Level”, and I am inclined to agree.

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/

However, if people were always willing to forego an immediate reward for some long-term gain, there would be no problems with obesity, alcohol abuse, problem gambling, etc. It is easy to find examples of countries where a tiny elite wallows in immense wealth, while the bulk of the people are extremely poor. Look up Equatorial Guinea. There is also a “tragedy of the commons” problem. If you are a landscaper in California and your competitors can get away with hiring illegal immigrants, paying them a pittance, and ignoring health and safety risks, then they can underbid you, so you must do the same or go out of business.

(cont'd)

The elite can exert their power either through controlling the government or indirectly, by controlling resources. I don’t see much difference between a serf being afraid to run away because he knows that he is very likely to be dragged back and flogged or being afraid to run away because he knows that he is very likely to starve.

In our own society inequality is rising again. This graph shows the share of national income accruing to the top 1% since 1900.

http://clubtroppo.com.au/2006/08/24/policy-and-perhaps-culture-matter-for-income-distribution/

The greater equality in the middle of the 20th century probably occurred for the same reasons that the rulers of Jordan, Syria, and the Gulf states are now making concessions. Basically, the elite in a number of countries allowed globalisation to be shut down for fear of something worse (although they have regained their confidence with the collapse of Communism). They were badly frightened by what was happening in Russia. In the US, World War I meant decent jobs for blacks for the first time, and after the war there were bloody riots between the blacks and the immigrants who were displacing them from their jobs,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_St._Louis,_Illinois

as well as often violent labour unrest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_labor_issues_and_events

Immigrants were occasionally violent anarchists or communists, and happy to spread their ideology to the locals, and there were a number of anarchist bombings, including letter bombs sent to individuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1919_United_States_anarchist_bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street_bombing

Divergence
I don’t think you’re addressing the issues.

“Market failure: I was thinking of basic scientific research...”

What about it? You seem to think that just saying the words “basic scientific research” provides proof against freedom and in favour of coercion. It doesn’t.

If you’re arguing that there's not enough basic scientific research, you need to show:
• relative *to what*?
• how do you know that whatever else the payees would prefer to spend their money on, would *necessarily* be worse for a) them and their families and preferred community purposes and charities etc, or b) society at large?
• how do you know, how would you prove it?
• ethically, what justifies you threatening to handcuff, or shoot, or imprison someone for disagreeing with your opinion that he should provide the money against his will?

Monopoly
Again you are assuming, not proving your argument.

I have a monopoly of the sale of my own poetry, which sadly proves that monopoly is no guarantee of riches.

The furphies underlying your assumptions are that:
a) monopoly of itself represents a social evil (everyone has a monopoly of his own particular services)
b) if a monopolist withholds products from sale to drive up the price, this would be evil, but if he merely refrained from production, this would be fine – no different than the worker who prefers leisure to work?
c) the purchaser is being forced to pay the monopoly price
d) the purchaser has a right to the fruits of other people’s labour for less than they are willing to accept to pay for them – he doesn’t.

On an unhampered market, cartels are inherently unstable, precisely because of the incentive of others to make profit. What enables them to be permanent, such as the banking and oil cartels, is the intervention of *government*.

Furthermore government is a monopoly of violent force, so even if your assumptions were right, which they’re not, how could substituting the *certainty* of a *present* *violent* monopoly be any improvement on the *mere possibility* of a *future* *non-violent* monopoly?

You keep on conjuring the spectre of starving masses with their noses pressed against the window of the archetypal fat, top-hat wearing, cigar-smoking capitalist. You may not be aware of it, but you are merely channeling Marx and his long-since-disproved “iron law of wages” – (wages under capitalism supposedly tend inexorably to subsistence).

The opposite is true. Marx was wrong. Your *assumption* is bad both in theory and practice. All the great famines of modern times have been caused by government and it is precisely the operation of free trade subject to profit and loss that stops this degradation happening.

“It is easy to find examples of countries where a tiny elite wallows in immense wealth,”
but it’s hard to find examples in which their privileged position is not the result of state interventions, Equatorial Guinea being a case in point.

“The elite can exert their power either through controlling the government…”

…which is no recommendation of government, is it?

“or indirectly, by controlling resources”
More false conjuring of starving masses.

If the control of resources is subject to profit and loss, then the elite can only profit from those resources by using them to satisfy the most urgent wants of the masses, as judged by the masses. Otherwise they will make losses, and the price mechanism will transfer their property peaceably into the hands of owners who *are* willing and able to put those resources to the service of the most urgent needs of the masses, as judged by the masses.

That’s how it should be!

Only if the control of resources is *not* subject to profit and loss, can we get the parasitical privileged elite living at other’s expense, and only government has the power to do that.

As for Gruen’s “distribution” of income, it is entirely illegitimate for purposes of a discussion of voluntary versus involuntary social order to fail to distinguish between income distribution resulting spontaneously from a voluntary order, and forced redistributions of income.

So still no-one has justified government or democracy over non-violent freedom.

thinker 2 and Divergence
You face four categories of conceptual difficulties:

Peter Hume
(1) I dont necessarily agree that Govt in practice represents legalized aggression in isolation.

(2) Gov't is far from perfect Peter, I agree, but I believe that Big Business and Gov't bear equal responsibility for the future of which we appear to be heading.

(3) Gov't often fails Peter because of the undue influence of Business or the rich and powerful and is therefore corrupted; history is proof enough and not just an irrational circular method, even when you are referring to history's serfdoms.

The Gov't should have to some extent have hands on the reigns in order that their theoretical constituents (the people) be represented during decision making processes.
This is not so of business (unless you are considering the body of share holders in corporations as constituents of equivalent value), to the gene pool as a whole.

What is good Gov't?, I don't profess to know Peter, but I hope someone comes up with one in my lifetime, so that the future for most people, the flora, the fauna, the planet etc, can be achieved.

I'm not sure PH that I'm ready to give anarchy a go yet, but I am willing to accept more civil liberty and individual freedom and a much more simplified law structure. I too have some views about how a more voluntary way of life could be, but also how it should be.

I guess you might think me an old control freak PH ?.

p.s. thanks for your links Divergence.

"In those days government itself was privately owned, so this only takes us back to the underlying issue, which is, why should social relations be based on coercion and thievery rather than consent and property?

(Feudal government BTW was also full of the usual blandishments by the political class about how indispensable they are for the general good, how the victims of their predatory parasitism are really beneficiaries – exactly as our contemporary statists spout.)"

Except the dichotomy still isn't there.
1- in the feudal times, the tax money went straight to hereditary lords by virtue of personal entitlement.
These days, it goes mainly to fund public infrastructure, hospitals and schools, which everybody either uses, or benefits from those that do- except of course a libertarian society where the money WOULD only go to government.

Also, in feudal times people had NO property, they paid leases to be allowed the 'landlords property'- it was essentially, all privatized into one unaccountable individual.
That sounds a lot more like privatization than tax for nationalized assets, don't you think?

It still sounds like nothing more than an over-the-top victim mentality by someone who feels SO put out, that the earnestly compare themselves to people living in feudalist or socialist or nazi societies, simply because they have to pay taxes to ensure basic services continue.
I'm certain if you were to travel to a country where people actually DO live like this, they would be hard to sympathize with your complaints.

thinker2
You're still not getting to square one.

Physically attacking people, or threatening to do so, is illegal for everyone except government which gets its revenue in this way.

If government takes billions of dollars from the population, and gives it to its pet favourite businesses, it is confusing cause and effect to think that is caused by business. But even if it is, that's an argument against government, not against business.

Hazza
The dichotomy *is* still there. Tax is not a voluntary payment, by definition. It is a compulsory exaction which by law confers *no* entitlement to any services funded with it.

So you have assumed what is in issue, namely, that it is good and beneficial to provide services by coercion rather than by voluntary means.

It is true that government provides services with the money. But it is not true that only government could provide them, nor even that it does so passably well. In fact the least that government-provided service costs is usually at least double what the same service would cost supplied by private providers.

If it was true that people really want the "services" provided by government, there'd be no need for taxes, would there? According to your theory, we could abolish them and people's consumption patterns would remain unchanged. It's nonsense.

All you're doing is re-circulating the general brainwashed assumptions about how government a) represents the greater good, and b) is more physically productive. It's rubbish and you have not made the slightest attempt to prove it. It's you who are advocating for a continuation of the feudal system, for a privileged elite who can live at the expense of the serfs and mundanes who must labour under coercion for their benefit. The rest is just your assuming what is in issue, and pop-psychologising, in other words personal argumentation; both forms of argument are is irrational.

According to your theory, slavery and robbery are socially beneficial - so long as they are practised by government. That's literally the intellectual and moral level of the arguments of my opponents here.

"It is true that government provides services with the money. But it is not true that only government could provide them, nor even that it does so passably well. In fact the least that government-provided service costs is usually at least double what the same service would cost supplied by private providers. "
Rubbish.
The costs remain the same for whichever body undertakes it.
The only way to adjust the costs are by cutting them in certain areas, or increasing the price to make a profit or reducing the price to NOT profit.

But do tell, are you implying that if it were 'privately held' it would suddenly become just?

"Rubbish.
The costs remain the same for whichever body undertakes it."

You have just demonstrated your complete ignorance of the entire topic.

The costs don't remain the same whichever body undertakes it you fool. If that was the case, there would be no need for private property or personal liberty. We could just vest all property in government, and the result would be *economically* the same, or at least no worse. Socialism would be possible. (And it would also make no difference which private firm undertakes it.)

But socialism is not possible *in theory*, let alone in practice, because of the economic calculation problem. If you don't know what that is, you need to stop blabbering and superstitious worship of a falsehood, and find out because you're only making a fool of yourself.

"The only way to adjust the costs are by cutting them in certain areas, or increasing the price to make a profit or reducing the price to NOT profit."

So? That doesn't establish that government is equally capable of knowing which costs to cut, or of cutting them, and even if it did, it wouldn't establish that government is equally capable of knowing which are the most urgent wants of the masses, as judged by the masses, in other words, which services to provide in the first place.

"But do tell, are you implying that if it were 'privately held' it would suddenly become just?"
It would have four advantages over governmental provision:
a) the money to pay for it would be by consent not by coercion and in that sense it would be ethically superior
b) the product itself would not be aggressive violence and in that sense it would be ethically superior
c) it would have a direct way of knowing whether it satisfies the most urgent wants of the consumers, as judged by the consumers, and in that sense would be practically superior
d) it would have a direct *incentive* to satisfy the consumers, and avoid loss, and in that sense would be practically superior.

Government by contrast has all the disadvantages of the original problem, with none of the advantages of the private provision of services.

We don't have government services because the people want them provided by government. If we did, we could abolish taxes and governments would get their revenue by consent the way private businesses do.

Imagine if Channel 10 got its money by taking it out of your bank account and threatening to shoot you if you resist. Well that's how the ABC gets its money.

We have government "services" because government makes predatory and wasteful behaviour legal, safe and more profitable than the alternative. We have government services because the voter is faced with a choice: don't use the ballot and be exploited by others, or use it and exploit others, that is all.

Poor Peter, I sometimes feel bad leaving you to construct these tangents.

For the first half of your response, the one where you instantly assumed public infrastructure = socialism = private property CANNOT exist:
I am quite happy to leave sitting, and let everyone else get a dose of your mind's ramblings, that there is a Stalinist conspiracy behind the attempts to get us to pay tax.

It's a simple system we have, a mixture of private property because it is a basic human right to own whatever you exclusively purchase and maintain, while infrastructure that everyone's private properties or businesses are dependent on, be public-
-and on the understanding that these bodies use the infrastructure by default, and too many would atrophy without it, the presumption of consumption and thus responsibility for upkeep is automatically assumed.

(If there was a self-taught hermit who lived on his own remote private island property, had no access to any road, generated his own power by purchased solar panel or turbine, and grew all of his own food and water from his property, and had no phone, would not be able to access a hospital nor likely benefit from emergency services, and whose conduct incurred no cost on others, THEN you would have someone who can claim should not by involuntarily funding infrastructure, and be up for exemption.

Everyone else, on the other hand, either uses infrastructure, or benefits substantially out of people that do, and often, many people would conduct themselves in a way that incurs costs on their neighbors or strain the infrastructure itself.

It would be like buying cable TV, and getting a monthly fee for renting THEIR services regardless how much you watch you actually use (less than ABC/SBS but besides the point)- up until you formally terminate their coverage and return their products.

To cease your coverage of infrastructure- see above.

To compare public/private infreastructure services.

1- So, if private services are voluntary and not 'forced by threat of violence"- I could drive along a private tollway, and not pay the toll, and they won't do anything- is that correct?

2- How exactly do you 'refuse their services' other than become a hermit? What happens if there is a fire and you need the privately-owned fire department?

3- No competition possible due to monopolies- you can't simply pick and chose which roads you use depending on where you live and where you need to go, nor your plumbing and phone lines, unless resources were wasted on duplicating (the latter two, not the roads). The roads would turn to chaos as motorists would fight over more 'economical' paths instead of take the most efficient route, and thus become less efficient and less safe. Safety measures like speed limits and speed cameras are more potential to profit from. We instantly have a less-efficient, more cluttered and wasteful system.

4- Motive for profits and investing drives up the price for consumers- motivation to cut costs to less PROFITABLE services shuts remote, physically-disabled and others who need the infrastructure (and others who need these people to reach them)

5- Personalized tolling places more intense cost of burdens for workers to get to work- drastically sabotaging businesses that were unlucky enough to be separated from its workforce by a greedy infrastructure holder.

Against a public system
1- automatic public subsidy = immediate access without fumbling for change, bidding, or billing procedures = faster roads and less waiting in line for other services.
2- automatic assistance by emergency services
3- infrastructure only covers what is actually neededed by consumers, instead of convenience of company pushing for it.
4- only running costs reduce price, and more people recieve benefits of service.
5- minimal costs spread out amongst population, increases work,travel and business real-estate prospects.

Now, as of now the government does indeed call shots and can impose profits out of infrastructure- which takes us back to Direct-Democracy, so public property is actually PUBLIC, not government.

democracy isnt all its cracked up to be
but democracy must consider all the facts

dictator-ship's on the other hand
are about select advantage..exclusive franchise or private acces

and that makes dictatorships worse

here is a thought
revealing whats behind just one dictatorship
http://links.org.au/node/2179

and about how far a demonautocracy will go
to keep their man in his oppresive powers

Israel provides henchmen for Gaddafi
By: Ethan Allen
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/167814.html
Israeli arms distribution company Global CST has reportedly, under the authorization of Tel Aviv, provided Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi with African mercenaries to clamp down on anti-government protesters.

Egyptian sources have revealed that the Israeli company has so far provided Gaddafi's regime with 50,000 African mercenaries to attack the civilian anti-government protesters in Libya.

The arms company was previously convicted in an African country over illegal deals, News-Israel website reported.

but
look at whats in the media
[owned and controlled by 'special intrests']

Huckabee: Pay no attention to Israel's hiring of mercenaries (with your money) to slap down the Libya freedom movement.

It is really far more important
to bash unwed Natalie Portman for having a baby!
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/natalie-portman-slammed-wedlock-pregnancy-20110304-040133-011.html

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/03/05/dr-ashraf-ezzat-will-america-make-the-right-choice-in-libya/

but back to demonic autocracies
or how demonmockery really works

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=14178

http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/03/israel-intervenes-in-libyafor-gaddafi.html

mercenaries to Gaddafi from the Israeli officials in advance.

Sources say Global CST had obtained the permission for providing the mercenaries to Gaddafi from the Israeli officials in advance.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/03/03/gordon-duff-israel-intervenes-in-libya-for-gaddafi/

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2011/03/britain-cherry-picks-which-war-criminals-to-prosecute-and-where-to-impose-no-fly-zones/

http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2011/03/the-beacon-that-is-israel-self-serving-by-delay-and-denial/

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2011/03/william-cook-the-beacon-that-is-israel-self-serving-by-delay-and-denial/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/business/global/04sovereign.html?src=busln

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_562.html

http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/03/virtually-unknown-in-west-libyas-water.html

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2011/03/israel%e2%80%99s-hidden-faces-a-long-day%e2%80%99s-night-for-us-all/

Oneundergod,

No, democracy is not all it's cracked up to be, but it sure beats whatever comes second.

Yes, it is the host to many evils, terrible crimes committed in its name, especially by capitalism and above all by the US, but it still beats whatever comes second.

Dictatorships over 30 years (Mugabe) ? 32 years (Mubarak) ? 40 years (Omar Bongo) ? 42 years (Ghaddafi) ? 52 years (the Castro dynasty) ? For life (Malawi, Zaire, etc.) ?

Dictatorships of one party for 62 years (China) ? Of one party and one family for nearly seventy years (North Korea) ?

Dictatorships of no government, elections or public service (Afghanistan under the Taliban) ?

Monarchies ?

Yeah, imperfect and ramshackle maybe, but give me democracies, or countries striving to implement democratic reforms and equal rights, any day.

Hazza
The issue is voluntary versus coerced relations, rather than private versus public.

If the discussion were between, say, two government departments, it would be fine to “automatically assume” the justification of government. But here, where the very issue is whether the assumption is justified, you can’t just assume it, you need to prove it.

Four problems with your argument:
1. your distinction between private and public is a distinction without a difference
2. you assume that government represents the people more or better than the people represent themselves
3. you assume government is more *physically productive* than private providers
4. you still haven’t shown why the use of force is ethically or practically superior to voluntary relations in any event.

‘The public’ is just, in other words, ‘the people’.

*All* services to the public are ultimately services to people as individuals. On the other hand, all official providers benefit in their capacity as private individuals.

There is no sense in which private property or services benefit only individuals in an atomic sense, nor can government arrogate to itself the credit of social life. The very issue is whether coerced relations are anti-social, and voluntary provision would be better for society both ethically and pragmatically. To assume what is in issue is circular argument, which is unfalsifiable, which is irrational.

For example supermarkets are public places providing services to the public, and the want of food is arguably more important than the want of broadband or art galleries or scientific research.

Yet that does not justify a supermarket
a) claiming a monopoly of initiating force over the people in a given area
b) excluding competition at gunpoint
c) forcing its subject to pay whether they want its services or not
d) offering only a trolley of mixed goods selected by the supermarket, on which everyone votes en bloc once in three years, and then everyone gets the same groceries for the next three years, whether they want them or not
e) with impunity, replacing the caviar with shi/t soup – no rules against fraud or misrepresentation for this mob.

f) rigging it so that richer people can force poorer people to pay for their groceries, or vice versa
g) paying its own employees above the market rate for its “services”.

The fact that a service benefits people, no more justifies the assumption that it should be provided by government, than the fact that sex benefits people, justifies the assumption that rape should be legalized.

The need to justify coerced provision in the first place, precedes any question of asserting the goodness of a “system” that is a “mix” or “balance” of voluntary and coerced relations.

So much for the ethics of governmental provision, but there is also the issue, implied throughout your response, that government is more *physically productive* than private providers.

Now since this is an issue, that means you’ve got to prove government is more physically productive it is, and I’ve got to prove it’s not, fair enough?

I prove it’s not as follows.

The problem facing any service provider is how to use scarce resources so as to satisfy the most urgent human wants. In voluntary relations, the entrepreneur combines factors of production which he buys earlier in time, into a final product which he sells later in time. If the final product sells for more than the factors of production cost, he makes a profit. If it sells for less, he makes a loss.

Thus profit arises from *removing the maladjustment* between where the factors of production are, and where the masses want them to be. The greater the maladjustment removed, the greater the profit. Loss arises because the service provider has wasted the resources, in other words, diverted them to uses which satisfy human wants *less* than could have been satisfied by their alternative uses.

On the other hand the whole purpose of governmental provision of services is to *displace* the operations of profit and loss. Absent these, bureaucracy has only rules and regulations to go by. Now the functions of the entrepreneur are done by using the instruments of profit and loss.

*How* is a bureaucracy to perform these functions? Since, absent the incentive to avoid loss, each bureaucrat could provide a “Rolls-Royce” service and empty the treasury, he must be subject to a budget, and to rules and regulations. Obeying these, *how* is the bureaucrat to be *more* physically productive than a capitalist? How is he to know how to avoid loss and how to satisfy the most urgent wants?

*How*? NSW Premier Kristina Kenneally recently cut fares on trains in her electorate. Like that? By pork-barrelling at election time?

*How*? By doing deals between vocal minorities in marginal seats?

Even in a theoretically perfect representative democracy – (say secure online one-person-one-vote on every proposed law) - *how* are the polled masses to know how to be *more* productive than private providers, without knowledge of the particular facts, and without the possibility of rational economising?

That’s what you have to prove. You haven’t started yet.

Government doesn’t get the money to pay for a loss-making operation from a moonbeam. It gets it by taking it from the people. To compare apples with apples, it can only do this by *not* satisfying the other most urgent wants of the people which that money could have been used for.

Thus the coercive sector is not and cannot be more physically productive than the voluntary sector.

To answer your questions:
2., 4. 5. and Against a public system 1 3, 4 and 5

These questions all assume that government is more physically productive than private providers, and that profit self-evidently proves the misallocation of resources. This assumption is wrong. I have just disproved it, and no-one has proved it.

1. No. Private property doesn’t mean you get to use other people’s property for free. We’re talking about *voluntary* society, not *pacifist* society. You’re still allowed to use force to defend your person or property. It’s the *initiation of aggression* that’s the problem, which just happens to be the foundation of all government, that’s the point.

1. No. Private property doesn’t mean you get to use other people’s property for free. We’re talking about *voluntary* society, not *pacifist* society. You’re still allowed to use force to defend your person or property. It’s the *initiation of aggression* that’s the problem, which just happens to be the foundation of all government, that’s the point.

3.
Interesting about the roads. Most people have never given it a minute’s thought in their entire lives. However
a) a *certain* monopoly *now* to avoid the mere *possibility* of a *future* monopoly does not make sense, and
b) it is likely that the worst-case scenario of private roads and highways would be far better than the dysfunctional slaughter-a-thon we now have: see http://mises.org/daily/3416, precisely because now, no-one responsible for roads has any personal incentive to stop killing people and causing chaos, nor loses money when they do.

Tolling under a fully private system would probably be by by electronic scanning, and monthly billing by credit card. It is laughable to suggest that bureaucratic rule reduces traffic congestion; why do you think they’re trying to mimic markets by introducing congestion charges? It is precisely government providing roads for “free” to everyone that makes them turn to speed cameras for revenue raising. Private owners would simply exclude offenders. Other owners would offer no speed limits.

Against a public system
2 Assumes we can all get something for nothing by using government. We can’t. Or assumes that some should be forced to pay for others, without saying why?

You have not advanced the argument one iota in favour of coerced co-operation, and have simply assumed everything in issue, which is a logical fallacy.

Government is a monopoly of the use of force and fraud. It brings nothing else, no caring, knowledge, or competence that is not
a) already available, and
b) better brought into the service of society by voluntary means.

We all remember the German democratic republic, and all others that claim to be an alternative to democracy.

we will subvert the will of the people?

Israel send 50,000 African Mercenaries to Libya 03-03-2011
http://www.dailypaul.com/158871/us-to-spill-marine-blood-against-50000-pro-gaddafi-mercenaries-who-is-recruiting-funding-them-youll-never-guess

The US demands immunity for foreign mercenaries
in the International Criminal Court.

The UK Telegraph reported that African mercenaries hired by the Gaddafi regime to kill Libyan protesters would be immune from prosecution for war crimes due to a clause in this weekend’s UN resolution that was demanded by the United States.

Israel authorizes a security firm to send 50,000 mercenaries to Libya to crush anti-government protesters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbvz2mTUDWA

demon-autocracy 101

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/israels-intentions-in-the-new-egypt/

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-american-bloody-pragmatism.html

http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/03/david-icke-truth-about-middle-east.html

The Zionist Agenda (Full Speech) David Kelly BBC Murdered for Truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MjMhO_hUiY

http://www.revoltoftheplebs.com/categories/news-analysis/israel-on-the-wrong-side-of-history/

0- Peter how convenient that you ignored the point where direct democracy ties back into the equation- thus providing the incentive and accountability to improve functionality- rendering any political beneficiaries redundant as they no longer hold the monopoly powers.
The principle is that as everyone uses or benefits from the infrastructure being in place, and society would quickly crumble without the infrastructure in place, the assumption that society must pay by default- considering they would ultimately be required to pay to use the roads one way or another if they are to be maintained, than either let it crumble or expect a minority of users to carry the full burden.

1- Firstly, 'private property' is quite a broad brush to make, especially when comparing.
a- a dirt track or avenue that extends through a privately-owned piece of land (a farm or office building estate)
b- a highway funded by taxpayers, or on public property.
The justification of a is generally percieved as a right, but how exactly does one justify exclusive holding of (b).
With forced-coercion to pay for use established in both public and private roads, where exactly does the volunteering or general moral superiority come into play?

2- No- it assumes costs are minimized for the individual as they are shared broadly, and with no costs outside maintenance, presuming -0- is in place (as the title would suggest).

3- Generally in terms of efficiency, our own history of public assets-turned-private is quite substantial evidence in the cost of the service increasing, or present tolling remaining permanent instead of temporary, and the service coverage being rolled back. The difference in death toll might have something to do with the fact that 99.99% of our roads are state roads, and only a minute amount is private property.
Under any system where an exclusive owner is in charge and bears little public accountability, there is nothing stopping them from de-prioritizing management responsibilities and pushing for profit- just as much as the Lane Cove tunnel has extensive speed cameras installed (and the road above mysteriously shrinks to a one-lane road at 60kmh).

Hazza
0-
I didn’t ignore direct democracy providing incentive and accountability – I denied it does or can, asked you to prove how it can or does, and you haven’t done so.

Firstly we don’t have a direct democracy so it seems common ground that appeal to the benefits of government as is are problematic.

As for accountability, when did government ever send you an account of how much of your money they have taken, and what they spent it on?

And as for incentive
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.” Thomas Sowell

Secondly, let’s suppose we had a theoretically perfect direct democracy: each adult has a secret vote on any question of public interest. We assume they will not vote on every action of every public service, every bus route, every condition of every job, every office procedure, etc. Direction will be vested, as now, in an employed executive, right? As with private enterprises, they will buy labour, land and capital goods earlier in time, and after a process of combining them, will sell or give away a finished good or service later in time.

Now.

0-1 Ethically, why should the majority be able to vote themselves the fruits of other people’s labour?

0-2 Practically, *HOW* are the people or the executive going to *know* how best to combine the factors of production in such a way as to satisfy the most urgent wants of the people as a whole (not just the majority) and minimise loss and
0-3 *HOW* are the people or the executive going to have any incentive to do so?

Just because people use a service, doesn’t mean they should be forced to pay for it, and you have not justified your assumption that, just because government does provide a service, therefore
a) it should, or
b) it does so better than competing private providers would.

1-
“The justification of a [private road on private land] ] is generally percieved as a right, but how exactly does one justify exclusive holding of (b) [ a public road on public land’].”

One does not justify private holding of “public” [translation: state] property. One justifies replacing coerced social arrangements with voluntary social arrangements.

“With forced-coercion to pay for use established in both public and private roads, where exactly does the volunteering or general moral superiority come into play?”

It doesn’t. The whole purpose of coerced services is to exclude the voluntary sector which would be ethically and pragmatically superior.

But are you asking how to go about the approach to a voluntary society?

2- “No- it assumes costs are minimized for the individual as they are shared broadly, and with no costs outside maintenance, presuming -0- is in place (as the title would suggest).”

Even if direct democracy were in place, still you can’t assume the cost for the individual are minimized. Why not? Because *there’s no use saying the money cost is minimized if the person preferred something other than what the money was spent on in the first place.*

In a voluntary transaction, we know that the person prefers the thing they buy to the alternatives – otherwise the transaction wouldn’t take place. With coerced transactions, we know that the person prefers something else more than they prefer the service they were forced to pay for, otherwise coercion wouldn’t be necessary.

3-
In a complete privatisation - where there is no remaining governmental intervention forcing the price up - if the result is that the cost of the service goes up, this is the same thing as saying that, under public ownership, it was being run at a loss.

“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it.
The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
Thomas Sowell.

Government can’t magically make net benefits out of thin air by forced confiscations as you keep assuming.

*Evidence* doesn’t interpret itself. That requires theory. If your theory is wrong, you’ll get the wrong conclusion.

You need to show show *HOW* even a perfect government is able, by virtue of mere force or majority opinion, to overcome the problems of ethics, knowledge and economics that I have identified, and which you have not refuted.

Until then, you are not in a position to conclude that *partial* privatisations under current highly imperfect, corrupt and *interventionist* government, cannot possibly manage the efficiency of social relations based on freedom and property.

All the arguments of the statists so far can be summarised in one word: conjuring.

Perhaps we should discuss instead how best to transition from where we are now – an ugly amalgam of crony socialism and corporate capitalism - to a free society?

Direct Democracy:
As Voters are affected by market prices and trade capacity as consequence of their decisions- and of course were to undermine their own rights to private enterprise if they vote to do so, I'd say they are in an ethical position.
(though I love how you imply that it will definitely be a socialist system, despite the three times it has been used in recent history the results have been very democratic and personal-rights centered indeed- though I imagine you can't tell the difference between socialism and any system that is non-libertarian, so I will not press you for definition)

Furthermore, it would take a majority of individuals 'laborers' themselves to be required to come to such a decision.
If the majority of the public actually DOES feel that a socialised collective benefit is worth more to them than having autonomous rights, then it would create a new dichotomy- that the Libertarians would then be imposing their system on a nation that doesn't want it.
And therein lies the justification- either a system where the majority impose an all-encompasing system on themselves and others that a minority does not want, or a system where a minority are at liberty to impose what they want on everyone else.

It would further imply that if a person preferred to have their money spent on other means, they would be in a position to initiate a referendum with an argument why there should be expemptions in this field- and either enough people agree to remedy the problem, or it is another failed attempt at fringe imposition on the rest.
That also applies for changing service-providers or reforming the service.

Economically it's simple- infrastructure does run at a loss, regardless of how it is run. Under freedom to profit, it is run at an even greater loss. Under voluntary payments, the loss is carried by fewer, despite the benefits of that service trickling into non-direct recipients.

And I feel I have answered many of your points, but await substantiation of yours- your system and transition I am also interested in.

That’s like saying, because people are affected by the need to obtain consent to sex, therefore if they *don’t* obtain consent, they are in an ethical position. It is complete moral and intellectual confusion.

You seem to believe that people can have whatever economic reality they want, by virtue of majority opinion, or by changing the name of the “system”. They can’t. Reality imposes limitations on human action.

The economic chaos caused by common ownership isn't peculiar to states "called" socialist, like the USSR. The economic problems I proved inhere in common ownership, WHATEVER IT’S CALLED. That’s why you were COMPLETELY UNABLE to answer the questions I asked as to how the socialist – or whatever you want to call it – executive is to know how to economise?

“If the majority of the public actually DOES feel that a socialised collective benefit is worth more to them than having autonomous rights…”

Whether or not something is true doesn’t depend on how many people believe it.

It doesn’t matter how many people believe that rain dances improve crop fertility, or that common ownership makes society richer and fairer. If they can’t provide a rational vindication of their belief, and cannot refute the arguments showing it’s false, then it’s just as irrational and futile as if a majority didn’t believe it.

There’s no question of a minority, or of libertarians, imposing their opinions on others. But that doesn’t mean
a) that people who want to be free of others' violence are “imposing” their opinions on others;
b) that majoritarian theft and bullying are ethical or economical.

“Economically it's simple … non-direct recipients.”
Sorry, but that’s simple ignorance. According to that theory, common ownership is more physically productive. If what you were saying were true, then there would be no ethical or economic reason why *everything* should not be held in common.

So you haven’t answered my arguments; are just displaying your complete ethical confusion and economic ignorance; and are only demonstrating why democracy is an immoral system.

Like I said, the limitations are *ideas*.

Actually Peter I *have* answered your arguments, I simply have yet to entertain your absurd attempts to shift the debate onto 'socialism';
You on the other hand have not answered a single one of mine either.

Economics is affected by conduct in exchange of capital; a recent market failure, namely the global market crash, was a direct result of irresponsible trading of capital. Which rather weakens the case of success of unregulated voluntary conduct and trading.
Capitalism needs accountability and regulation to work, just like a society- to ensure a stable structured and sustainable market is maintained.

The majority principle is a matter of cultural conduct, while 'truth' in terms of 'correct' cultural conduct is nothing but a personal point of view.
In this case, that society wants to pay automatically for social stability rather than fall into anarchy, while a few people would sooner the latter simply because they don't feel like paying for it.
If a person lives within a town, they are automatically benefiting from the roads, water supply, representation, legal and emergency services, as well as the commercial system and law of that town. By exempting themselves they are in fact forcing everyone else to pick up his slack, and becoming a burden, while benefiting regardless (and you have not given a case to the contrary).

And your 'why don't we socialize everything' argument, after I actually explained why to you already, only proves to me that you don't want to address my points and instead avoid them- hence put up weak attempts to divert and insist that the topic goes to communism.
But because I'm so generous I'll explain it to you in even simpler terms.
People have a right to private exclusive ownership of privately-maintained property. People do not have a right to exclusively own public-maintained and dependent assets at the exclusion of the other shareholders (the public).

If you want to keep comparing it to Socialism- by all means continue!

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY!

" Many of us regard ourselves as mildly liberal or centrist politically, voice fairly pleasant sentiments about our poor children, contribute money to send poor kids to summer camp, feel benevolent.

We're not nazis; we're nice people.
We read sophisticated books. We go to church. We go to synagogue.

Meanwhile, we put other people's children
into an economic and environmental death zone.

We make it hard for them to get out.
We strip the place bare of amenities.

And we sit back and say to ourselves, "Well, I hope that they don't kill each other off. But if they do, it's not my fault."--

Jonathan Kozol, educator and author



Corporate Coup d'Etat In Wisconsin

Ralph Nader calls Washington corporate-occupied territory -

"every department agency controlled by the overwhelming presence of corporate lobbyists, corporate executives in high government positions, turning the government against its own people."

Nader also said corporations don't just control government, they are the government. "The corporation IS the government!"

They bought and own it at the federal, state and local levels, running it like their private fiefdom at the expense of working Americans, systematically stripping them of hard-won rights.

Webmaster's Commentary:
This attempted destruction of the middle class in America is no accident; it is an absolutely deliberate set of actions.

Read more: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
The History The Government HOPES You Never Learn! http://whatreallyhappened.com
http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/03/only-18-of-americans-approve-of.html

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/169394.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-missing-people-2011-3/
http://rense.com/general93/coup.htm

http://www.truthistreason.net/oil-were-here-for-the-heroin-at-19923200-per-barrel
http://www.truthistreason.net/heroin-the-cia-in-afghanistan-911-and-the-mujahadeen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ruQ4GbjlPs
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=14246

its the end of the world as capitalists know it
and so too to communism[we dont need bosses/masters
just direction for the greater good[peace love plenty]

let govt serve the people
and go to jail when caught serving capitalists
or communists seeking socialist terms..[grant gift bailout]
[for themselves or their corporation]

did you notice the billionairs have gone from
1000 last year..to 1200 this year
its time to tax them
[dic-traiters]
fat rats

*bring in a transaction tax

As you are defending common ownership of capital resources, it is not “absurd” to identify the economic problems of common ownership, however called, on which your argument completely fails.

You haven’t answered my arguments at all. You have lost the economic argument while ever you cannot answer *how* a bureaucracy is to a) *know how* and to b) *have incentive* to economise so as to devote scarce resources to satisfying the most urgent wants of the people, as judged by those people themselves, if not by using profit and loss? You simply assume government has magic pudding.

Go ahead: please answer without further evasion: How are they going to do it? An honest concession that you don’t know will do.

“[The GFC] rather weakens the case of success of unregulated voluntary conduct and trading. “

The market was not unregulated. On the contrary, government at all times controlled money’s price and supply, steering mechanisms of markets. This COMPLETELY DISPROVES your argument as to the GFC.

(In any event, the state has NOT increased accountability, it gave billions of dollars away to its favourite corporations, banks, and foreign governments, WITHOUT ACCOUNTING FOR IT WHATSOEVER. Not even Congress has been able to get an account of it, let alone Joe Public from whom the wealth was taken. So get your facts straight?)

The financial markets were and are extensively and intensively regulated by dozens of bureaucracies with thousands of pages of regulations; and one in particular – the Fed – prints and hands out money at will. I don’t know how you managed to swallow the belief that the market was “unregulated” but it’s obviously and grossly false.

So do what rational people do. Reject your false belief. Re-think your claim. And ask yourself this “Given that government controlled the money supply, that its supporters claimed it HAS the competence to manage the economy, and that its detractors claimed that this leads to economic crises and social injustice, which theory is proved true? And what effect might massive governmental manipulation of the money supply have had on the economy?"

“The majority principle is a matter of cultural conduct, while 'truth' in terms of 'correct' cultural conduct is nothing but a personal point of view.”

According to that theory, we can increase crop fertility by throwing virgins into the volcano, so long as the majority of people believe it’s true.

You see, just because human action is cultural, doesn’t mean that reality and truth and logic don’t impose *knowable* limitations on human action. The reality of the economic problems I have proved – we can’t get something for nothing – kicks in. Only if you can disprove my economic argument, can you assert that different points of view might be equally valid; until then, you are merely stuck thinking that false beliefs are true.

I *have* addressed your points by showing that
a) majority rule is unethical, and
b) even if the majority think they can make society better off by public ownership of capital goods, this belief is false. I have proved why – economic calculation problem. You have not disproved me. That’s why you can’t answer the question - *HOW* is a bureaucracy to be as economical as a private business? That destroys your entire argument.

But if there’s some point I haven’t answered, please ask it clearly WITHOUT ASSUMING that the state has superior knowledge, selflessness, and capacity.

“People have a right to private exclusive ownership of privately-maintained property. People do not have a right to exclusively own public-maintained and dependent assets at the exclusion of the other shareholders (the public).”

The entire issue is whether democratic government is more beneficial than freedom and voluntary society. So you can’t just ASSUME the justification of so-called publicly-maintained assets (translation: state-maintained assets), or private property for that matter.

For example, you say “… infrastructure does run at a loss, regardless of how it is run. Under freedom to profit, it is run at an even greater loss.”

Prove it. It's incorrect. There is nothing about capital goods that intrinsically requires them to run at a loss, and there is nothing about infrastructure that intrinsically distinguishes it from capital goods.

Your entire argument would only make sense if:
• reality did not limit human action
• majority opinion defines what is true
• violence defines what morality is – might is right
• the existence of profit intrinsically proves wastage and misallocation of resources
• the principles of economics did not apply to infrastructure
• tn the state, we have available a magical mystical entity that is able to solve the economic problems of resource scarcity by its superior knowledge and competence.

You don’t want the argument to run into socialism, but all the assumptions you rely on are just unreconstructed socialist theory that has been proved wrong, elsewhere and here, and that you are completely unable to defend.

And that’s only in theory, and assuming a perfectly representative government. We haven’t begun to deal with the practical problems of governmental corruption and incompetence that OUG has alluded to.

In short, you have not shown how coerced social relations are any ethical or practical improvement on voluntary social relations.

Remember, all the property that the state gets, it confiscates from private producers. For many centuries, people thought that the way to riches and prestige was to get an armed gang of men, go over the hill to the next village, and take their stock and women and chattels – the spirit of conquest. They didn’t think it was wrong, just as modern democrats don’t think it’s wrong to use the state steal as much as they like from whomever they like. But it is anti-social, immoral and makes society, poorer not richer, whether or not its supporters believe otherwise.

Point by point:
Firstly, no, the all-resources-public IS an absurd projection you simply WANT to make. The fact you do just shows how little practical knowledge you have.

Secondly, the same methods beurocracies in businesses would use for upgrading departments- quoting costs for the endorsed project, comparing to input rates (taxes) and treasury.
I thought you were supposed to be privy to economics and finance?

Wrong again on the GFC- it started because banks and investment companies were trading in unrepayable loans they knew were unrepayable and selling them anyway. Now tell me, does this imply conforming to sensible trade regulations or under-regulated independent deviation from the norm- or, do you think a trade authority, in awareness of this an charged with enforcing proper trade conduct, would allow them to do this?
And the non DD state DID bail these companies out- hence DD.
The fact you need to keep diverting the subject to a non-DD system is rather embarrassing to have to watch you know.

Or more specifically, Peter, explain how this will NOT happen with LESS regulation?

DEMOCRACY
Nice try Peter, but you very much can say "Well if one person doesn't believe in science and instead virgins need to be thrown in the volcano, what right does everyone else who disagrees to stop him?"
According to your theory, people deserve the right to throw virgins in volcanoes without caring that the law forbids them, because they know they're right!

cont

And no, you have provided NO calculations at all. What you HAVE done is bored me with the usual catch phrases like "There's no free lunch" and expected that to work.
I have 'not answered your question' because you never asked it.
I have pointed out the simple maintenance that under a DD/CIR government control, the public pays estimated tax to cover the repair and vital employment costs- working out cheaper than a private system because there is no additional funding needed for profit, whilst having maximum output of services regardless of marginal numbers in sectors to provide input.
In fact I've told you this before and you skirted around it saying it "won't work".
Because it's "socialism"
And "Socialism doesn't work"
Therefore "That thing does not work"

I love your next points, not only do the negatives
-imply more strongly to libertarian anarchy
-Never practically addressed by yourself
-Still basing your arguments on non-DD governments, feudal lords, and better yet, socialist governments, to make your points look less ridiculous
-pretending that the intra-business practice of resource-allocation which is applied to infrastructure, doesn't exist.

And no, as much as you really wish it were, it still is not socialism because a capitalist system and private property clearly very much exist as the driving force of society in every area BUT infrastructure and basic services.
The funny thing is it's only 'socialism' because you're expected to pay maintenance on basic services, THAT you are not allowed to buy and keep to yourself (like a Feudalist system)

But please don't stop insisting on the communist conspiracy- its helping make you look even sillier- and to be honest I'm not even sure you're just making it up to pull my leg, and you actually do believe this is the world you live in.

1.
I’m not running an “all resources public” argument. I’m arguing that *any* resources held in common face the same problem, which I have proved, and you have not disproved.

2.
You say bureaucracies will economise by using “the same methods beurocracies in businesses would use for upgrading departments”.

No doubt they would! But that doesn’t explain how they’re going to avoid massive waste – it’s confirming that they will continue the massive waste they’re already doing!

You haven’t answered the question, how they are going to know which factors of production to combine how, so as to satisfy the consumers’ most urgent needs, and avoid wasting resources that could go to satisfying still other needs.

You have *assumed without proving* that they know how to do it from nothing more than the fact that they exist. But since they get the money by compulsion, THAT IS NO PROOF, since they could everything wastefully.

Therefore you have completely lost the economic argument.

3.
As to the GFC, you said it was because the market was unregulated. It was not unregulated, it was highly regulated by dozens of bureaucracies and tens of thousands of pages of regulations, and in particular the price of money was regulated. Therefore you have completely lost that argument.

It is true that the GFC is because “banks and investment companies were trading in unrepayable loans they knew were unrepayable and selling them anyway.”

But it is not true that this behaviour was because the market was unregulated, but because of government’s long-term policy of inflating the money supply – pumping new money, in the form of cheap credit – in to the very market – housing – where the bubble arose, surprise surprise.

In the absence of such a policy of inflation, neither buyers nor sellers could have expected that prices would continue to rise. (I did it myself – borrowed heavily principal-only during the boom never expecting to repay it, and profited from purely inflation-caused capital gain.)

Thus what would have been imprudent, loss-making behaviour in an unregulated market, was made rational behaviour by ...

…government policy – that’s why people did it! It enabled the more financially sophisticated to profit at the expense of the ordinary NON-landowning punters whom government forced to pay for it all.

But if the problem is the greed or ignorance of the masses, then obviously a perfectly representative government would have a duty to represent them in all their greed or ignorance, and would be NO improvement whatsoever.

In fact it would be worse, because it could add aggressive force which voluntary society could not.

So you’ve lost that argument four times over.

“explain how this will NOT happen with LESS regulation?”
You wouldn’t have gross bubbles in the first place, because no-one, including government, would have an exclusive monopoly licence to print money. Anyone trying it, either by printing money or permanently cheap credit, would suffer losses and go broke.

Unlike governments – of either party – which can profit while the whole system is tending downhill, right down to the destruction of the monetary unit itself (Weimar republic, Zimbabwe, USA).

People would be able to provide for their retirement by a) savings, and b) investment in *productive* activities. Under government’s “management” of the economy (permanent inflation, complicated regulation of business, and high taxes), it is harder to get ahead by productive activity, and easier by victim behaviour, greater debt, and speculation on asset inflation.

4.
The whole idea of a voluntary society is against *initiating aggression*.

So if one person believed in sacrificing virgins, *anyone and everyone* would have a right to stop him.

No-one's forced to do anything, unlike to democracy, in which anyone wanting NOT to be violated, needs first to persuade a dispersed anonymous majority who have no moral right to be sacrificing other people’s values in the first place, but who have perhaps a direct interest in doing so! A completely immoral system.

5.
It’s you who need to provide calculations, not me. What you are arguing is essentially that, in the absence of profit, the people would have all the advantages ...

…of the same services at the same cost, without the additional cost going to profit.

They won’t, because in the absence of profit and loss, the bureaucracy won’t have any way of *knowing*
a) which services to provide – you’re just assuming that the function of predicting the future state of the market is entirely unproblematic. If it was, profit and loss would not exist.
b) how to combine the factors of production to avoid waste as much as possible.
And the bureaucracy will not have any *incentive* to economise because the bureaucrats will NOT have an ownership interest (that’s the whole point of the exercise) and will get paid the same no matter how wasteful or dysfunctional they are.

6.
Your entire argument depends on the supposition that there is something about infrastructure that distinguishes it economically from other capital goods, such that capital goods can run at a profit, but infrastructure must run at a loss.

Consider a bus service or a medical practice. These can be, and are, provided by both government and private providers. According to your theory, if they are privately-run and considered as NOT infrastructure, they can be profitable. But if they are considered as infrastructure, all of a sudden they not only *can* but *must* run at a loss, and furthermore that loss will be *more* than if they were taken over by the gumment – that paragon and thrift.

This homespun theory is confused laughable nonsense.

7.
I reject the personal arguments and misrepresentations that comprise the rest of your post.

You still haven’t shown any reason why direct democracy would be any improvement on the original problem, especially since it would be duty-bound to truly represent the people no matter how greedy, ignorant, violent or unaccountable they might be. It would actively aid and abet these anti-social vices.

8.
To answer your question about transition to voluntary society, like the abolition of slavery, it would be relatively easy to achieve in practice.

The impediment is the moral confusion and circular thinking that you evidence so well.

1.
I’m not running an “all resources public” argument
Oh my Peter, now you're backtracking on your own words?
As a matter of fact you tried to insist it WAS exactly that, TWICE. And then you went on to talk (well mention over and over) about socialism not working. Exactly in the same way you kept veering off DD to a PP-relationship/cronyism.
Really Peter this "discussion" has become more about you changing your own arguments each time and contradicting yourself, and then lying to deny it.
It's becoming boring.

1- where does this money come from if nobody is allowed to print it?
2- Define 'productive activity' and who gets to say what it is when most of the practices that altered the economy were themselves volantarily appreciated as productive?
3- "So if one person believed in sacrificing virgins, *anyone and everyone* would have a right to stop him." Under what justification? What laws? Whose laws? The difference between your anarchist version and DD is that DD allows for rule of law with a popular mandate- as opposed to a handful of people nominating themselves for a lynch mob.
Nice going Peter.

4"No-one's forced to do anything,"
You just contradicted 3 with your lynch mob. Completely random people can nominate themselves judge, jury and executioner to violate somebody else's rights simply because they feel like it, don't like what the target is doing.

5- In the absence of profit for infrastructural maintenance, the extra money required for profit is not needed to be paid by the consumers, and thus is either spent on extended service coverage, or reduced and in turn improves consumer freedom to spend it on businesses of their choice.
Thus creates a freer, more just society than yours where people have MORE freedom to spend their money on what they choose (unless of course someone miraculously lives entirely off the land)

Snore.

NON DD- Bureaucrats again- circular arguments indeed.
Peter, the fact you go so far out of your way to AVOID the argument is really quite telling.

It's quite simple Peter- the DD infrastructure financing would work in the same way, with quotes for needed funds to maintain. The only difference is funds that exceed the required amount are not actually aimed for except as a margin of error, and that excess is not simply pocketed. Taxpayers effectively fill the boots of shareholders, only their priority, as people that actually use the service, to maximize its output.

Defining Public infrastructure. Generally things that
1- have no basis for competition
2- are depended upon by society to function
3- a private individual would not have any justification claiming privately to himself.
4- May correspond to the basic rights as defined by the society.
5- Voted on as such.

Of course, you are happy to explain how exactly a private individual deserves the right to acquire public land, do what they like with it and force people to "voluntarily" pay to use it.

It's actually a lot less arbitrary than the circumstances that people would act the way they would in your 'voluntary' society.
"You still haven’t shown any reason why direct democracy would be any improvement on the original problem, especially since it would be duty-bound to truly represent the people no matter how greedy, ignorant, violent or unaccountable they might be. It would actively aid and abet these anti-social vices. "
And in your society, these people would be free to do whatever they like with absolutely no basis to restrain themselves. Laws imposed by a majority would consider things they at least, would NOT want done to them- thus creates stability that is entirely non-existent in your magical society.

I define ‘productive activity’ to be activity intended to produce goods and services to satisfy people’s wants EXCEPT wants, goods or services to initiate aggression. (I define *them* as destructive activity.)

Take a bus service for example. If it runs at a profit, the fact that payment was voluntary proves that the consumers prefer the satisfaction they get from the bus service over the satisfaction they could get from other goods or services they could spend the money on. If it makes a loss, it proves they preferred the satisfaction from the other things the factors of production – the fuel, the labour, the metal etc. - could have been used to produce.

Governmental ownership has all the same original problems and disadvantages, and none of the advantages: simplicity, practicality and ethicality of this way of managing complex production processes to decide how to allocated scarce resources to their most urgent or important uses.

For starters, a bus service will not be without competition, since the consumers could travel from A to B by car, or foot, or bicycle, or train, etc. The people may even prefer the satisfaction they would obtain by spending the same money on something unrelated to buses, like food, or art, or charity. There will be *competition* for the scarce resources required for a bus service. Therefore it will not qualify for your definition of infrastructure.
1. So what will stop the DD from voting for a bus service when we are both agreed that it will be an illegitimate use of public moneys, or rather confiscated private moneys?

How will the bus route, and the bus stops, be decided?
2. Will the people vote on them? If so, how will they know about all the bus stops, routes, services, trains, ferries, highways, dams, and all alternative uses of the factors of production?

3. But if the people are to delegate the task of managing the bus service to an executive, how is he or they going to know what the bus route should be?

If the excutive does it by copying the profitable route of a private bus service, there will be competition which doubly disqualifies it as infrastructure, even according to your theory.

4. But if he does not copy profitable routes, what is to stop him from choosing routes not justified by number of users? E.g. NSW buses recently ran the equivalent of *90 return trips to the moon EMPTY*. What would stop that kind of thing happening?

5. How are the people to rectify such waste without any economic feedback mechanism to know about it, and without having to get over 50 percent of the votes for the whole population for every bus route?

6. If they can get over 50 percent of the vote how are they going to *know*, without profit and loss, what action will rectify the original problem?

How could the executive officers possibly know the values and wants of the consumers which they are supposed to satisfy, especially since these wants:
• are *subjective*
• are dispersed throughout millions of people
• are constantly changing every day
• cannot be quantified or measured
• cannot be inter-subjectively compared.

Unless and until you can answer those question, you cannot maintain that government could provide infrastructure services cheaper. In fact you can’t even establish that:
a) anything could QUALIFY as infrastructure in the first place according to your own definition, because the very fact that taxation is a compulsory confiscation proves that there *is* a basis for competition for the resources and services government would supply; nor that
b) Government would know what services to provide at all, nor how, so as to satisfy the most urgent or important wants of the consumers of government services.

Under a voluntary market-based system, no centralized knowledge, and no definition of ‘productive activity’, is necessary. The price mechanism serves to inform, and co-ordinate the various different values, factors of production, and products. And it is done peaceably.

But the idea that governmental waste could be reduced by direct democracy is COMPLETELY WRONG...

because EXACTLY THE SAME IMPOSSIBLE PROBLEMS - of knowledge and incentive - would face the people or their delegates, as face the people’s representatives and their delegates now.

As for voluntary society, the question is, whether a general ethical and legal rule against initiating aggression would not be a better basis for society, than democracy, direct or otherwise.

You are either misrepresenting or misunderstanding the issues with your desperate sniveling about lynch mobs, and chaotic violence because
a) since such behaviour by definition involves initiating aggression, it is no argument against voluntary society
b) since there is nothing in principle or in practice about democracy preventing the initiation of aggression, and much to promote it, there is no reason to think that democracy, of any kind, could be in any better position.

All it means is that, when you look at examples of illegitimate aggression, such as our current military adventures, or war on drugs filling the prisons, or fleets of empty buses you simply DON’T RECOGNISE IT as illegitimate aggression and social chaos.

As for where the money’s going to come from, obviously you have given the whole topic approximately zero minutes thought in your entire life, so perhaps you should *think* a bit before babbling that it’s impossible?

So, in a voluntary society, *where do you think* the money would come from?

“Of course, you are happy to explain how exactly a private individual deserves the right to acquire public land, do what they like with it and force people to "voluntarily" pay to use it.”

Since government gets all its revenue by confiscating private property, you need to explain what justifies “public” (dishonest expression meaning governmental) land in the first place. Don’t tell me, lemme guess: because they can provide services better and cheaper than private suppliers, right? Fool.

If we take away your circular reasoning, mind-reading, misrepresentation, attribution of bad faith, hysteria, childish sniveling, and unjustified assumption that government atuomatically represents the greater good, there’s nothing left.

You have not shown that democracy is preferable to freedom, even according to your own theory.

peter i enjoy the way you go in depth
but your wrong in a few things

we used to have electric trams[here in brissie]
they ran every 10 minutes or so..but then govt got presure on it
to privatise it..[and globally the same scam went down]

it was run by general moters
they bought up the tram system
sacked maintanance devision..and changed the sceduals

soon people stopped using the tram
and yes bought cars..[holdens of course]

but not enough did
so one dark night the depo caught fire
and most of the wooden trams burnt...and soon the service was so bad it was dropped alltogether[clem jones could explain it better]

anyhow..public transport runs to sceduals
it MUST met up with other services
thus time sceduals arnt flexable

people must get to town center before 9 am
or its not a service[you lose ya job]

you say private enterprize could do better
i say thats bull...only govt can run a service
without making extra for the sharholders...

if its for proffit
its not a service

look at the disaster of privatisation of govt is doing globally
christ church cant call up heavey machinery because it privatised public services..

the contracter is too busy doing other things

its time we reduced govt
each time it privatises all govt
elected or workers[especially bosses]should go to
cancel their overly generouse pensions as well..

if they dont serve..
they de-serve nothing

OUG
Unless you can answer the five questions I've asked, all you are proving is that people hope to get something for nothing, and they couldn't care less what it costs, so long as they can use government to force someone else to pay.

Hazza and OUG
Sorry I shoulda said 50 return trips to the moon empty in that last post. This is the article I was thinking of. You gotta have a read of it, PLEASE:
http://www.busaustralia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=53112

Now remember, that monumental waste is just with buses, and just in NSW, and just at the State level. But, as I have proved and you have been unable to disprove, this problem affects all government projects everywhere. Imagine adding up the billions and billions and billions that are wasted at the Federal level - EVERY YEAR - let alone at the international scale.

It is pure illogical fantasy that government can provide infrastructure cheaper than private services. The only reason people like OUG think it can, is because unlike business, government doesn't have to recover all its costs from fares, it merely hides the additional costs in the general tax bill, is completely unaccountable - they NEVER send the citizen an account of how much of his money was taken and what it was spent on - and then the economic ignorance, and sheer gullibility, of people like OUG and you, believe they're getting something CHEAPER!

Then when businesses charge what it costs including the costs of foregoing alternative uses that you are NOT taking into account because you don't even understand the concept, you mistakenly conclude that business makes it more expensive. But you're using a double standard, because businesses are the only ones that have to charge what it costs, and governments are the only ones that are allowed to hide, and lie about the costs!

It's laughable superstitious credulity.