Ludwig
The issue, as between us, is whether government has the competence that you say it has. Everything you have said has assumed it has. This means that everything you've said assumes what's in issue, which is the logical fallacy of begging the question, which is illogical, which is irrational.

That demolishes your entire argument.

On the other hand, you have said my argument is illogical. But the only reason you've given is because it doesn't agree with your opinion. That is not, of itself, a logical error since there is always the possibility that your opinion is wrong.

As for MIses, putting aside your personal question, the question is whether a theory or argument is true, not whether it's popular. Something can be true without being popular, and vice versa. For example your theory is popular but not true. The reason we know this is because
a) you have admitted that government does not have the knowledge it would need in order to achieve sustainability, and
b) all your argument depends on you assuming government can do, what you have admitted it doesn't have the knowledge to do.

You admit not-understanding Mises. If you knew his theory completely disproves your whole belief system, would you make an effort to understand it?

Your idea that regulation would go *down* in a sustainable society corresponds exactly with the idea of the communists, that the state would "wither away" on the arrival of communism. It's just that society would have to go through an intervening period of total government control of anything and everything to achieve it!

How could that be any different under a government devoted to achieving sustainability?

What would be an example of something that government would not have a right and duty to control, given it has to control anything that might not "endure"?

How would govt know whether it's robbing present or future humans in any given action?

Why is it not a blank warrant for unlimited power?

And spare us the ad hominem replies. Please just answer the questions? - *without* assuming what's in issue!

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

Hahaha. This is not the first time you’ve made your vivid and quite weird imagination apparent! ( :>)

<< Ok, so you're now calling it "facilitating"…. >>

Pericles, you are a great one for playing around with words, which I see simply as an obfuscation of the discussion, from someone who up against the wall with their argument!

You know perfectly well what I mean. Like um, we’ve only been over this stuff about fifty times before on OLO!

For goodness sake, governments do indeed, and very strongly so, facilitate/push/encourage/drive/cause/make people move into areas with stressed resources, services and infrastructures.

The fundamental driver is very high immigration. There is also the god-awful baby-buying bribe that has increased.

People are free to move where they want. But only up to a point. They go where the jobs are, where affordable housing is, where others of their nationality or religion are, or for sea-change or tree-change reasons, etc, etc.

The places that meet these criteria are our large cities, southeast Queensland and various coastal or near-coastal centres respectively. Our cities and SEQ all have major resource-supply, service and infrastructure woes. And smaller centres with rapidly growing populations have a mix of positive and negative influences as a result of it, and have to be very careful that they don’t suffer overall significant net negative consequences.

(I can see your eyes glazing over at this point. You just speed-read those last three paras didn’t you!)

And again, the business community is very happy about all this growth, by and large… which just flies straight in the face of your argument about their goody-two-shoes planning and the notion that these plans are mostly in line with the right sort of plan for a healthy future for these centres and for the whole country.

We’ve got total disagreement on this, Pericles. And it seems as though we’ve reached the stage where there is little point to further discourse.

Ludwig
What would be an example of something that government would *not* have a right and duty to control, given it has to control anything that might affect
a. "the capacity to endure"
(Wikipedia's general definition), or
b. "the needs of the present [or] the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (Brundtland definition)

1. Can you give us three concrete examples of what human actions would *not* fall within those definitions, and which government would therefore not have a right to control?

2. How would government know, in any given action, whether it's impermissibly robbing present or future humans in any given action by its own definition. Don't tell me there is no need to know every detail. I'm asking why not? How is government going to know whether any given action complies with its own definition or not?

3. If there was any disagreement whether a given resource came within the definition or not, who would get to decide - the owner, or the government?

4. Why is your ideology not a blank warrant for unlimited power?

<< The issue, as between us, is whether government has the competence that you say it has. >>

Yes Jardine. You think that government is terrible at everything and only makes things worse: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5753#160527

You are saying that government cannot logically manage sustainability, and your prime reason seems to be that they would need to know the fullest extent of everything about it in order to be able to do that.

<< Everything you have said has assumed it has. >>

Yes, I assume that government CAN manage sustainability. The notion that they simply can’t do this is a step too far for my meagre brain to deal with! I can’t see a reason in the world why I shouldn’t assume that government IS inherently very capable of this.

In fact, the notion that they simply can’t do it seems so alien and weird that I very nearly didn’t take you up on your initial comments. And I don’t know why I am still discussing this with you, when you write stuff like this:

<< This means that everything you've said assumes what's in issue, which is the logical fallacy of begging the question, which is illogical, which is irrational. That demolishes your entire argument >>

So, according to your amazing logic; because I make the assumption that government can do what it is supposed to do, I lose the entire argument and you win, which means that you can feel free to automatically assume that government can’t do this without justifying your position, ….. or something like that!

To me, your arguments about logic are based on the most illogical premise, and therefore just leave me wide-eyed and slowly shaking my head when I read a lot of your comments!

Surely the onus of proof or very strong corroboration is on your side of the debate, given that you are introducing the unfamiliar concept.

OK, that’s enough for now.

Please don’t post any more comments for a while. There’s plenty of meat in your last two posts to keep me going for another half a dozen responses!

So you say, Ludwig.

>>For goodness sake, governments do indeed, and very strongly so, facilitate/push/encourage/drive/cause/make people move into areas with stressed resources, services and infrastructures.<<

What is still missing, after all these posts of yours that say exactly the same thing, is any semblance of evidence. Apparently, it is supposed to be obvious.

>>The fundamental driver is very high immigration. There is also the god-awful baby-buying bribe that has increased.<<

Certainly, those two factors have the effect of increasing the population, given that not many people are leaving our shores. But I thought we were talking about the impact of those numbers, not the numbers themselves.

What you have failed to show is any actual evidence that we are suffering as a nation from this increase. Plenty of opinion, a lot of conjecture, and a willful blindness to the fact that we are better off now than at any time in our history.

>>They go where the jobs are, where affordable housing is, where others of their nationality or religion are, or for sea-change or tree-change reasons... Our cities and SEQ all have major resource-supply, service and infrastructure woes.<<

Which ones? Be specific. And this still lackes the imprint of a government "push".

You argue solely in generalizations, which is one of the reasons you remain entirely unconvincing.

The best that you seem capable of is to twist the arguments of others, to the point where they are unrecognizable:

>>And again, the business community is very happy about all this growth, by and large… which just flies straight in the face of your argument about their goody-two-shoes planning...<<

It is not "goody-two-shoes planning" to ensure the future stability of your company, through policies that ensure the future stability of your supply chain. More often than not, these policies will mesh neatly with those of the community. So far, you have been unable to point me towards an example that contradicts this.

But then again, after all this time, that is hardly likely to change, is it.

<< You admit not-understanding Mises. If you knew his theory completely disproves your whole belief system, would you make an effort to understand it? >>

I AM making an effort to understand him. What do you think I am still discussing this stuff here with you for?

Jardine, you’ve got to admit that von Mises is a just tad difficult to grasp. But what you are saying on this thread is just the same as what he has espoused, is it not? So I don’t need to go and labour over his great tome, to which you referred me, I simply have to try and grapple with what you are writing here.

<< Your idea that regulation would go *down* in a sustainable society corresponds exactly with the idea of the communists… >>

Whoop-de-do!

<< It's just that society would have to go through an intervening period of total government control of anything and everything to achieve it! >>

Putting aside the totally meaningless allusion to communism, yes from this point forward for us to achieve sustainability, we would indeed need stronger governance, not with total control, but certainly with a much better level of regulation.

And if we don’t head towards sustainability, we will get just the same; ever-more efforts from government to control all the things that are getting progressively further out of control.

Less government control from this point forward is something we are simply NOT going to get! And thank goodness for that! The last thing we need as the stresses of antisustainability manifest themselves more and more, is a greater level of anarchy, where the rich, powerful and more ruthless and self-centred elements would rule the roost!

continued