Within the Young Liberals, however, I’ve seen a lot of guys with the potential to reverse this economic trend if they stick to their guns once elected and influence sitting members. Alex Hawke, who’s just been preselected, is one example. While I realise the media’s made a bit of a beat up over his social views, but for what it’s worth his political compass is (+9,+2) or somewhere in that range, and I’ve never heard anything particularly offensive in the 2 years I’ve known him (i.e. he’s conservative, but no moreso than the mainstream of Australian society).

Of course you still have a few people whose primary concern is conservative social policy, but they’re still outnumbered by those who are genuine small government conservatives, and on top of that there’s a sizable number of libertarians as well.

Perhaps it’s overly idealistic to hope that this will filter through the the parliamentary party, but I’d argue that (a) if the GOP can put Goldwater forward as a presidential candidate, there’s hope for every conservative party and (b) it’s probably no more unlikely than the LDP pulling a Stephen Fielding then doing something significant with it.

I not only choose to worship Allah, DL, I choose at the ballotbox for you to worship Allah too. In fact, my preference to pray in my mosque is conditional on others in my country praying in the mosque too – so that equity under Allah is maintained. Now, I know that having preferences on others actions does not fit easily within an infidel framework, but the truth is that your free riding imposes costs on me, and others, so your ‘do what you like yourself so long as you do no harm to others’ defence holds no water in this debate.

You will submit to Allah’s will.

It seems pretty obvious to me that free riding is a problem much more common in communist countries.

I also think you underestimate people’s ability to recognise the problems with the rat-race and make adjustments accordingly. And perhaps you underestimate the degree to which some people enjoy the rat-race, irrespective of the outcome. Like poker, sometimes you can win (utility) even if you lose (money). Psychic externalities from everyday behaviour are many and varied and the definition of a good life is nearly impossible to pin down, even for bureaucrats.

Regarding the effects of tax on growth — I think trade (domestic & international) has the positive externality of enhancing the total knowledge stock in the economy (knowledge spillover) and I think knowledge growth is the primary driver of economic growth. Therefore, anything that inhibits voluntary trade will reduce economic growth. All tax inhibits voluntary trade. But that is perhaps a debate for a different day.

Question 1. How can we optimise without any input data?

Question 2. Do you think people on lower incomes with different preferences are really better off being taxed into leisure if you cannot measure the extent of these externalities?

3. If you are rational and have a memory, how can you be taxed into having lower expectations?

Yes they are. This really comes down to the problem with your position. Yes, there will be a hormonal reaction to a sexual invitation (evolution has made it this way for obvious reasons) but as beings of reason we don’t live like animals. Or at least we can choose not to. The ‘feelings’ that the hormonal reaction causes is dependant on the values we create within ourselves. If you don’t have the will to develop these values you are condemned to live as an animal, or at best a tribal being (or pack animal).

Your argument could be used to justify Sheik ‘fuckwit’ Hillaly’s position for women wearing the hijab. Their existence creates an ‘externality’ which stirs up your hormones and makes you feel uncomfortable, so they have an obligation not to be seen. Then again, you probably agree with this.

For instance, your first response is the challenge that I “know for sure” that , when in fact I pointed out that I am not prepared to give any guarantee of a particular outcome, but that certainty is not required to justify government actions.

Similarly, you assert that I “don’t give a fig about the veil of ignorance as a tool of analysis”. In fact I do, and I think using it bolsters my case. However, all I said was that the point of your question – namely “What about the veil of ignorance?” – was unclear. It is a ridiculous interpretation of that – which reveals either substantial cognitive limitations on your part or a malicious intent to miss the point – to say that I don’t give a fig about the veil of ignorance as an analytical tool.

________

PS: My earlier response of “No” to your original question five was to the second sentence in that question; not the first. Thus, I was not admitting to lacking rationality and adaptive expectations. The confusion caused was my fault. Apologies.

Ricahrd, over and out.