“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 ...