On Sun, 15 May 2016 05:14:56 PM Rohan McLeod via luv-talk wrote:

Russell Coker via luv-talk wrote:

...

https://www.change.org/p/barnaby-joyce-dairy-farmers-like-my-family-are-b eing- destroyed-please-step-in- urgently/u/16583897?tk=TYRO2k3SiGZUBRu4hwtFwXXkn357kIh6RcXFDSxVXgw&utm_so urce=petition_update&utm_medium=email

I sympathise with the dairy farmers; but would need to see what is being proposed to remedy their plight; before signing the partition.

The petition didn't seem to be as well written as it might have been. But I'll give people a pass on that when it's a difficult issue that concerns them personally. As for what is the best way of dealing with that, I think that it's a good idea to get the issue more publicity. A popular petition won't necessarily get the result that was asked for but is very likely to get the attention needed to make some improvement.

On the subject of Libertarianism

At the Existentenialist Society (which is a lecture forum not a club); we get left and right-wing anarchist attendee's and speakers. Frankly, right-wing anarchists seem little different from Libertarians and the kind of utopia they advocate;

Anarcho-capitalists are essentially fascists in all but name.

suggests a very strong connection between the Libertarian ideology and a Chicago style , ' Rational-Free-market ' economic one.

My objection to the latter is more epistemological than political; as I believe a science of economics; is possible (ie consisting of objectively falsifiable hypothesis only.); with all questions of ends relegated back to philosophy and the ballot box; where such questions properly belong.

The Chicago/Austrian crowd seem to think that things can be proven or disproven by their own imaginations. Really you can look at real-world experiements by observing the results when taxes are changed.

The Rational-Free-market proposition that: " a free-market (ie without legislated price controls) will produce 'optimimum' social-ends when least regulated" is I contend "not even wrong" ( to quote a remark from Wolfgang Pauli ) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

Nice reference!

-firstly because 'optimimum' social-ends' is not even potentially empirically definable -secondly because consumer demand does not constitute any kind of plebliscite of a society's wants; being merely a record of what was chosen from what was on sale. Which is why 'rational producer/ retailers' pay for market-research ! I contend this central economic ideology traceable back to Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand"; is a pathetic , irresponsible, fatalistic economic delusion.! ie a free-market needs to be constrained to whatever economic ends 'the ballot box decrees !

I think that every company that has a monopoly should be government owned. If a company gets a monopoly or cartel position they should either be compulsarily broken up or compulsarily purchased by the government. If we have toll roads then they should be owned by the government. The government should own all monopolostic public transport (IE all trans but not necessarily all buses), Telstra, and the electricity and gas suppliers. Then the citizens can vote on how those companies should be run. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

Rohan McLeod via luv-talk wrote:

[...] I contend this central economic ideology traceable back to Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand"; is a pathetic , irresponsible, fatalistic economic delusion.!

"Smith's famous invisible hand was, as he says in his Theory of Moral Sentiments [...] literally the hand of God." (pp44) http://libcom.org/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf (emphasis added) Recall here what Smith was trying to do when he wrote The Wealth of Nations. Above all, the book was an attempt to establish the newfound discipline of economics as a science. This meant that not only did economics have its own peculiar domain of study-what we now call "the economy," though the idea that there even was some­ thing called an "economy" was very new in Smith's day-but that this economy operated according to laws of much the same sort as Sir Isaac Newton had so recently identified as governing the physical world. Newton had represented God as a cosmic watchmaker who had created the physical machinery of the universe in such a way that it would operate for the ultimate benefit of humans, and then let it run on its own. Smith was trying to make a similar, Newtonian argument.² God-or Divine Providence, as he put it-had arranged matters in such a way that our pursuit of self-interest would nonetheless, given an unfettered market, be guided "as if by an invisible hand" to promote the general welfare. Smith's famous invisible hand was, as he says in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, the agent of Divine Providence. IT WAS LITERALLY THE HAND OF GOD.³ ² We often forget that there was a strong religious element in all this. New­ ton himself was in no sense an atheist­ in fact, he tried to use his mathematical abilities to confirm that the world really had been created, as Bishop Ussher had earlier argued, sometime around October 23, 4004 BC. ³ Smith first uses the phrase "invisible hand" in his Astronomy (111.2), but in Theory of Moral Sentiments IV.I.10, he is explicit that the invisible hand of the market is that of "Providence. " On Smith's theology in general see Nicholls 2003:35– 43 ; on its possible connection to Medieval Islam, see chapter 10 below. See also: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Moral_Sentiments/Part_IV