<< 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"? >>

Can’t think of a single thing! Government should control, or at least strive to influence by implementing incentives, all resources, services, infrastructure and things pertaining to them that might not endure where they could endure if they were better managed!

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

It wouldn’t! In the end-of-spectrum interpretation, the very use of any non-renewable resource, such as our minerals, could be deemed to be robbing future generations. The government, in consultation with experts and all other interested parties, would need to make a value-judgement on what we need to exploit now and what we should leave alone for a few years or decades.

<< Why is it not a blank warrant for unlimited power? >>

Ahh, now isn’t that an interesting question! This seems to sit right at the core of your concerns. You seem terrified that government could gain enormous power and exercise great suppression of you and all its citizens, as some dictatorships do. It is surely a very paranoid concern in relation to our democratic type of government, which the people simply won’t let get too autocratic.

The prospect of less government control and hence more control by the powerful, ruthless and greedy, is surely of much greater concern.

But wait, there’s more. I haven’t answered all your questions yet. So please don’t respond until I have.

Jardine, your last post was just a set of repeated questions, so it appears that I have addressed all your questions.

So please answer these:

1. What is so different about sustainability? Twice I have put to you (and twice you have completely ignored it) that government addresses all manner of things without knowing the full detail of them. Indeed there are always going to be variables and unknowns. But this doesn’t stop government from developing policies and hence regulatory frameworks to improve these sectors. Practically everything I can think of is like this: education, environment, health, business, road rules, national park regulations, alcohol use…. Why should sustainability be different to everything else in having to have all variables and unknowns eliminated before the government can implement any policies?

2. What is really going on here? I get the feeling that you are not actually too concerned about sustainability at all but are fundamentally concerned about government gaining too much power and that you feel the best state for our society is the one with the least amount of government influence, which indeed would be approximating anarchy. Am I right?

<< 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. >>

Well Pericles if it is not obvious to you by now, there’s not much I can do to make it any more apparent.

If you can’t see that for all the enormous expense that has been put into Sydney’s roads over the last say thirty years, there has been scant little improvement in the alleviation of congestion, which is directly because of population growth and the ever-increasing number of cars…

If you can’t see that the water situation in SEQ was dire before the rains of couple of years ago, with quite harsh water restrictions across the board and a very grim outlook if substantial rains hadn’t come…which was due directly to the very rapid population influx… which the government did NOTHING to try and slow down in the face of the resource crisis…

If you can’t see that an enormous amount of our wealth generated largely by the amazing ongoing mining boom isn’t being put into services and infrastructure all over the country, without leading to net improvements, but rather is just chasing the tail of ever-rapidly-increasing pressure on these things and massive demand for ever-more…

If you can't see that it is government that drives this population growth, and which could greatly reduce it and steer it away from places where it exacerbates major issues if they had the presence of mind to do so...

And all the while the business community supports rapid population growth all the way...

<< …any semblance of evidence… >>

Wow, ye really does only see what ye wants to see and conveniently ignores the most enormous elephant in the living room! But then again, after all this time, that is hardly likely to change, is it.

How about you give an example or two of where businesses have called for a stop to the increasing demand in situations where the supply capability is precarious.

Yup. There's the problem. Right there.

>>Well Pericles if it is not obvious to you by now, there’s not much I can do to make it any more apparent.<<

As I said before, generalizations simply don't cut it. If you were to provide some specific examples, we might possibly make some progress. But with vague arm-waving such as this, we're pretty well stuck...

>>...there has been scant little improvement in the alleviation of congestion, which is directly because of population growth and the ever-increasing number of cars<<

Or alternatively, the result of successive governments' perpetual round of under-investment, fudge, political compromise and outright corruption that gives rise to such half-baked schemes as the monorail, the light rail system, the various tolled tunnels that are over-engineered, over-priced and under-used etc. etc - the list is very long indeed.

>>If you can’t see that the water situation in SEQ was dire before the rains of couple of years ago<<

And how much effort had the government taken previously to ensure adequate water supply to the population that they knew would be growing? "Please, after you", said the horse to the cart.

>>How about you give an example or two of where businesses have called for a stop to the increasing demand in situations where the supply capability is precarious.<<

That's a silly request indeed. What exactly are the signs that I should be looking for? Perhaps if you first tell me where the supply is "precarious", and which businesses are involved, we can jointly do some investigation. Because when you think about it logically, you are far more likely than I, to have a list of "situations where the supply capability is precarious", are you not?

Ludwig
Imagine a discussion with an ecologist who assumed that eucalyptus communities dominate the flora of Eurasia.

You: “Why do you say that?”
He: “Because it must be so.”
You: “Well how do you know?”
He: “Because. It must be so because it must be so.”

Can you see, nor not, that process of reasoning does not make sense?

Because that’s what you’re doing, and that’s ALL you’re doing.

Actually you’re varying it with other similar illogic, like this:

You: “But you agree that, in fact, eucalypts are not the majority communities anywhwere in Eurasia?”
He: “Yes.”
You: “Then why do you say they dominate the flora of Eurasia?”
He: “Because. Surely they should.”
You: “Why do you say that?”
He: “Because. They should because they should.”
You: “Why?”
He: “Because I believe people who say it should.”
You: “How do you know they’re right?”
He: “Because. I assume it’s true.”
You: “So what? How do you know it’s true?”
He: “It must be so.”
You: “Because what?”
He: “It must be so because it must be so.”

I would also support sustainability policy as much as you do, if I indulged myself in such vicious illogical gibberish.

“I assume that government CAN manage sustainability.”

It’s obvious you *assume* it!

The question is whether you can prove it’s true. You are in effect using your opinion as the criterion of truth and logic. No offence, but that’s virtually the *definition* of idiocy.

“The notion that they simply can’t do this is a step too far for my meagre brain to deal with!”

Then why are you discussing it?

If you won’t accept the possibility that your notions are wrong, even after you have accepted multiple propositions that government cannot in fact do it, then what’s the point in talking about it?

“I AM making an effort to understand [Mises].

No you’re not. Making an effort means honestly examining the null hypothesis, and seeking to disprove your own opinions, not just adhering to your previous opinions regardless of the fact you have conceded what categorically proves them wrong.

“I can’t see a reason in the world why I shouldn’t assume that government IS inherently very capable of this.”

I’ve shown you numerous reasons, and you’ve conceded that they’re right.

a) Even a perfect government (and you agree it isn’t perfect) would have to control every human action.
(The totalitarian communists only wanted to control all production. You want to control all production *and all consumption*. So it’s not a “meaningless” comparison – you’re more totalitarian than they were!)

b) As for whether democracy won’t let them get too autocratic, obviously if it did, it would be totalitarian, and if it didn’t, it wouldn’t be sustainable!

c) Even if they could and should control all human action, still they would have no way of knowing whether they are improving or worsening sustainability even in their own terms, and you’ve admitted that.

d) It would be less sustainable not more, because of the economic calculation problem, which you’ve admitted you don’t understand
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3839

“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…”

More gibberish. You haven’t established it’s “supposed to”; that’s what’s in issue.

And even if you had, it wouldn’t follow that it *can*.

(What government is “supposed to do” is set out in the Constitution, at Section 51: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html
Please show us where it says “managing sustainability”.)

And yes, arguing that it can do it because it should do it, means you’re not making sense and have lost the argument.

“The government, in consultation with experts and all other interested parties, would need to make a value-judgement on what we need to exploit now and what we should leave alone for a few years or decades.”

See how you’ve assumed it again?

You have to show how government making that value judgment, would necessarily be more sustainable, and more representative of all interested parties, than the status quo. You can't just assume it!