Notice how at no stage have you actually turned your mind to whether your beliefs are true or not?

You assume from the outset that the state is society's organizational tool. But your original complaint is precisely that the state is spreading disorganization through society by its failure to manage population and sustainability as you would like. This should set off your alarms to re-examine whether your starting assumption is correct.

You assume that the state has the competence and good sense to manage sustainability. But again, your ongoing thesis is that the state is not displaying competence or good sense in its management of sustainability and population. This again should alert you to the possible need to re-think your starting assumptions.

You assume the problem is not enough government policy, but ignore the fact that all the problems you identify concern public goods. Again you ignore the obvious.

Then when challenged on your assumptions, your argument is that "surely" they must be true.

When challenged to answer questions proving government doesn't have the necessary knowledge, you admit they don't, but without understanding the logical consequence of what you've just done, you just return to your well-worn technique of assuming it can. Your evidence: the mere fact that government *says* it can manage sustainability policies! Unbelievable.

When challenged further, you simply repeat: "surely" the government must be able to do it; it's "weird" to question it.

At no stage do you ever come to grips with the fact that you and govenrment have no way of knowing whether a given action impermissibly deprives present humans, or robs future ones *even according to your own standards*!

To answer your question, sustainability means a *more organized* end; since it requires the balancing of current with future consumption, and the orderly reconciling of conflicting values.

Whereas anti-sustainability is a *less organized* end. No management competence is needed to cause or exacerbate a tendency towards greater disorder.

Honestly Ludwig, is that the best you can do?

Is it my imagination, Ludwig, or are you starting to feel a little... shall we say, trapped, inside your own argument?

>>Pericles, you wrote: << I most certainly can >> …followed a by whole lot of meaningless babble.<<

Wow. Meaningless babble, eh. There's an admission. I simply pointed out that there is no evidence whatsoever of governments, at any level, "pushing" people to live in places they don't want to go. Remember your statement?

>>It can hardly be more obvious that to push more and more people into places with serious water-supply problems is just crackers!<<

There's no "push", Ludwig. And as if to prove my point, the best you can come up with is:

>>OBVIOUSLY, both federal and Qld state governments are facilitating rapid population growth in southeast Queensland.<<

Ok, so you're now calling it "facilitating". But you haven't told us either, how this "facilitation" manifests itself. Apparently, it is supposed to be "OBVIOUS". But of course, it is no such thing. As you go on to tell us:

>>A couple of years ago, before the big rains (and floods) this whole region was in a critical water-supply situation. The long-term water-supply outlook is precarious. And yet people keep pouring in and constantly increasing the demand.<<

Still no evidence of government coercion, push or even facilitation. Simply people choosing where, in this beautiful land of ours, to drop anchor.

The fact that governments are, according to you, delinquent in providing the necessary infrastructure for these folk, is surely evidence that they are absolutely not coercing, pushing, facilitating or even encouraging the influx. The opposite would be more logical: by not providing (according to you) the infrastructure, they would appear to be actively discouraging new arrivals.

Where's the governmental "push" for people to move to a drought-affected area?

You are being disingenuous, Pericles. The government doesn't have to push anyone. They just allow development to be concentrated in only a few cities - where the people have to go if they want to continue eating, since that is where the jobs are. If people are unemployed, Centrelink will cut off their benefits if they move to an area where unemployment is higher, even if they can't get a job in the city either.

I totally agree, Divergence.

>>You are being disingenuous, Pericles. The government doesn't have to push anyone. They just allow development to be concentrated in only a few cities - where the people have to go if they want to continue eating, since that is where the jobs are.<<

Not about the disingenuous bit, of course, just the development part.

The people will gravitate to where there is development. They will not gravitate to places where there is insufficient infrastructure. As I understand Ludwig's argument, he is insisting that people are being "pushed" to areas with insufficient services.

>>If people are unemployed, Centrelink will cut off their benefits if they move to an area where unemployment is higher, even if they can't get a job in the city either.<<

I had in mind the employed, rather than the unemployed. I rather think Ludwig has the same idea...

>>And this is happening with the apparent full support of the business community.<<

The iniquities of business do rather seem to be front-and-centre in his thoughts on population, do they not. And if I were setting up a company that needed employees, I'd make sure there was sufficient infrastructure for them to live, work and play. I certainly wouldn't simply plonk one down in the middle of nowhere, and expect the government to deliver the goods. Quickest way to corporate penury is to rely on government for absolutely anything at all.

Hehehee, I notice a very interesting phenomenon happening here: my two arch-rivals in this debate, bless their little hearts, are completely ignoring each other!

You’d think they’d band together to pummel this horrible Ludwig character into the ground, coz they ain’t doing much of a job separately!

But no, they apparently see each other as too loopy to even acknowledge their existence!

Fascinating…… and most entertaining! ( :>)

<< To answer your question, sustainability means a *more organized* end; since it requires the balancing of current with future consumption, and the orderly reconciling of conflicting values. Whereas anti-sustainability is a *less organized* end. No management competence is needed to cause or exacerbate a tendency towards greater disorder. >>

Ok Jardine, thanks for answering that one. But dear oh dear, within the current highly unsustainable paradigm, our society is highly organised! A great deal of management competence is needed to oversee this. The fact that we aren’t heading towards sustainability doesn’t mean that we are less organised, or heading towards a less organised future, at least not in the short term. Our government is indeed managing antisustainability in a highly organised manner.

In fact, as the balance between supply and demand becomes more discrepant and stresses of all sorts increase, so will laws and regulations of all sorts. As we become more obviously antisustainable, our governance will increase the organisation of our whole society.

Under a regime or genuine sustainability, organisation could be relaxed. All manner of laws could be wound right back. The whole job of government would become much easier.

Sorry, but your explanation doesn’t crack it at all!

The other very salient point that I made on 7 May that you passed right over is this:

<< Look at government policies on all manner of things. Does the government EVER know the full detail about the areas that they regulate? No, of course they don’t. So why on earth should it be different with sustainability? >>

With all government policies and programs, there are always variables and unknowns. The regulatory regime is never as good as it should be and the aspirations are never fully realised. But governments still implement policies which for the most part are reasonably successful, and certainly a whole lot better than doing nothing.

So how does this sit with your *more organized*, * less organized* explanation?

And um…. you haven’t addressed my question regarding Ludwig von Mises.