Water? Infrastructure? Environmental management? All run by the government.

When governments ran the food supply, we got food shortages; now they run the water supply, we get water shortages. That's not because there's too many people; it's because the state is incapable of rationalising scarce resources to their most valued ends, and the beliefs of the statists, that the state is some kind of benevolent superbeing, are simply wrong. They have never thought through the issues; and only meet ever new disproofs by continued recitation of their brainwashed beliefs in the wondrous government even as they themselves complain at its dysfunctionality

Hells bells Jardine, what ARE you saying??

<< When governments ran the food supply, we got food shortages; now they run the water supply, we get water shortages. That's not because there's too many people >>

Erm… yes it is!!

In years gone by when there weren’t too many people, all was fine!

You are right about scarce resources. But why are they scarce? Because the demand is huge and rapidly increasing.

So how is the government supposed to deal with this? Completely divulge all responsibility to private enterprise? I’m sure that would work!

<< it's because the state is incapable of rationalising scarce resources to their most valued ends >>

Oh, so those who are not at the most valued end lose out, and either have to pay a whole lot more or just not get anywhere near the access to the particular resource in question, or both. And who decides which sector is at the most valued end? Think: water. Residential areas versus industry, for example. Which is closer to the most valued end?

It is a silly argument, Jardine. What the government needs to be doing is matching the demand with the supply capability, so that the supply can be maintained, with a big safety margin.

The supply of our basic resources is not increasing, or at least not increasing enough to match the rapidly increasing demand in sustainable manner. So guess what has to happen – the demand needs to be stabilised, stopped from growing ever-bigger, if not reduced overall.

<< They have never thought through the issues >>

Well that’s a huge understatement if ever there was one!

If they had even started to think about it, they’d see that to forever increase the demand for all our resources, goods, infrastructure and services, when they are all battling to meet the current demand, is not nigh on madness, it IS TOTAL madness!! !

Ludwig, scarcity of resources is caused by nature. It can't be made to just go away. Your idea that government should balance supply with demand presupposes that government is a kind of thing that can do this in the first place. It can't. It has no way of doing it because it has no way of knowing what are the subjective values of all the millions of people affected by its decisions.

So again, you're thinking what government should be, before turning your mind to what it actually is.

Would you think that Milperra Soccer Club can "balance supply and demand"? The Country Women's Association? The Comancheros? The Invisible Pink Unicorn? No. Because you understand it would be an irrational belief to expect that of these entities. But substitute government, and you don't recognise it's an irrational belief, while having no more reason to believe it. You've never thought through your assumption. Where did you get the idea that government is some kind of magical superbeing? Look at it. Look at Julia Gillard, and Tony Abbott. Do they look like superbeings to you? Do you think they are morally superior to ordinary people? Possessed of superior knowledge, and finer wisdom? You're kidding yourself. How is government going to know the higher versus the lower valued uses of tens of millions of people? How?

<< Ludwig, scarcity of resources is caused by nature >>

Jardine, within the context of our discussion, I disagree strongly.

For example, water is abundant in nature, and yet it is a stressed resource in many Australian cities, towns and agricultural areas. This has everything to do with the scale of the demand compared to our ability to effectively harness and utilise this resource.

<< Your idea that government should balance supply with demand presupposes that government is a kind of thing that can do this in the first place. >>

Absolutely! Governments can do this. It is one of the most fundamental roles of government to do so.

They are arguably not too bad at doing it on a small scale. Indeed it is a fundamental part of the approval process of all manner of projects to assess the viability and impacts, in the long term. Now, if they did this on the national level, we’d see something entirely different to what we are seeing now, in terms of matching supply and demand, assessing impacts and properly planning for our future.

<< You've never thought through your assumption >>

Oh yes I have, enormously, over many years.

It would seem to me that you are making assumptions which haven’t been thought through, and which are really quite alien to me. I mean, I’ve never heard the notion before that it is not the role of government to plan for our future, to carefully assess all the factors, to strive to not overburden already stressed sectors or supply lines, etc, etc.

Jardine,

What we are really protesting is an abuse of government power, intended to benefit the politicians' business supporters at the expense of everyone else. The Australian fertility rate is 1.9, slightly below replacement level, as it has been since 1979 - not a problem. The only reason that we are growing at 1.7%, a rate far more characteristic of a very poor Third World country than of an advanced developed country, is because of government immigration policy. This policy is maintained against scientific advice on our long-term prospects, despite the government's inability to supply adequate infrastructure, despite the lack of evidence of any significant per capita economic benefit, even in the short term, and against public opinion

Reaction to Kevin Rudd's Big Australia

http://www.smh.com.au/national/big-australia-vision-goes-down-like-a-lead-balloon-20100803-115g7.html

Recent public opinion poll

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/poll-shows-aussies-want-immigration-capped/story-e6frea83-1225822902965

Needless to say, the Government will not allow a referendum on this question. It is amusing to see a Libertarian like you defending "government interference" against "statists" like me and Ludwig.

I meant to say 1976, not 1979.