Scariest part? Hovind says the confiscated guns “belonged to the church.” Why does a church need guns?
————————————–

Reminds me of a line by Captain Kirk: “Uh, excuse me, but what does God need with a starship?”

Easy enough in private communities. What about in public areas? What about in cities? No one would be able to get anywhere in a city if the store owners only let customers use sidewalks.

“Roads”

Easy enough in isolated suburban environments. But how would people get between their communities if the only roads are within the communities? Once again, what about cities? There is no way to divide an urban environment into small, private enclaves. What about rural areas? Would they hire someone to police hundreds of miles of dirt road? Isolated, private communities are not a good model for the country as a whole. They are both isolated and private, neither of which applies in cities or rural environments and neither of which applies to getting between isolated communities.

“Highways”

The vast majority of highways in the country do not have tolls. Tolls cause a massive hit on productivity by greatly slowing down traffic.

“Welfare”

I can’t debate this one.

“Offensive Military”

Ultimately you still have the issue of people mooching of others. People may support it, but be unwilling to foot the bill because they think others would simply take the benefit without contributing anything.

“Medical Coverage ”

The US has no state-sponsored medical coverage, so this doesn’t even apply.

“Parks”

Not all parks can be isolated in that way. And it could likely significantly increase the cost.

“Schools”

An educated public is essential the functioning of a republican government. You could eliminate this, but it would do a great deal of harm to the country. If you have been at BA long you have seen all the damage that is done by a lack of education causes. Some people would certainly think education is worth it for their children, but even today there are many that don’t. Children are forced to go to school for a reason.

Gary Ansorge Says:

“Black cat: as far as successful countries without a significant tax structure goes, check out Saudi Arabia. No income tax, no social security tax, no sales tax, no gas tax, import duties, in fact, as far as I know they have no tax structure at all, yet the society works and its people seem to like it enough to keep it intact.”

That is because they get a fortune from oil. Not only do they have enough money from oil to cover their expenses, but everyone in the country gets a stipend from the oil revenue. Few, if any, other countries have that luxury.

Gary 7

I take issue with this statement, and I think that may be the missing component in your analysis of why people don’t pay taxes. If the government did only this, taxes would be a small fraction of what they are now, and I would pay them happily. Many people are unhappy with, and in disagreement with, the bloat which causes them to attempt to pay as little as possible.

Granted, there are a few things that cannot be isolated and must be paid for by taxes, law enforcement and national defense come immediately to mind, but are you seriously suggesting that everything our taxes pay for could not be privatized?! How do you respond to these few examples:

Sidewalks – My parents’ community has sidewalks and common areas constructed and maintained by homeowner association funds. Only community members pay for them, and only they use them. I have seen several groups of non-residents chased off because they were on the common areas illegally.

Roads – As above, community roads are paid for by the community. By insuring the community road is a dead end, and cannot be used as a thru-way, they minimize traffic. If you use taxes to only pay for roads not part of a community, you could break off a sizable chunk of DOT upkeep.

Highways – We already have privatized road systems called turnpikes.

Welfare – If someone does not pay into welfare, then they have no right to collect if something goes wrong and they need it. While this may be morally objectionable to some, the point remains that it can be isolated.

Offensive Military – While you cannot isolate those who gain from national defense, you can control offense. If a citizen feels strongly enough about an issue that they would go to war over it, let them foot the bill. If not enough will donate their own money for a cause, how can you say there is enough popular support to condone a government doing it?

Medical Coverage – Much like welfare above, isolating this could be morally objectionable, but it can easily be isolated. If someone does not pay in, they cannot use it if they eventually need it. Allow the market to set prices for the consumer and let them decide if they will pay into a government insurance program, or use the one provided by their employer?

Parks – Have a fee collected at the entry point. Yes, some could still sneak into the park by parking somewhere nearby, but the vast majority will pay the nominal fee to park on-site and avoid acting illegally. In this way, those who use parks once a year are not funding those who use them daily.

Schools – You would have to switch them all at once, as no one would pay to send their kid to school when public schools are free and available and…oh, wait…

As for the whole taxes debate. Good grief, forget all this complex economic theory, it’s human nature. People are people. Have you never seen anyone illegally and selfishly parked? dog s**t left on sidewalk? Illegal but there are always people who don’t care about anyone else and figure they can get away with it. You need laws to make such people pay their taxes and you need those laws to have teeth.

Check this out for some interesting work on honesty.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9424-big-brother-eyes-make-us-act-more-honestly.html

And I am saying that is not possible! Things are paid for by taxes specifically because those things cannot be isolated to specific people. That is the whole point of taxes in the first place! I don’t know how many other ways to say this.

“There’s a big difference between saying that prison isn’t the first thing that comes to my mind and advocating no consequences whatsoever.”

Prison is the only punishment left. If someone refuses to pay taxes, refuses to pay fines, and doesn’t care if you sieze his property, then short of shooting him prison is the only other punishment left.

“I am not proposing free anything.”

Yes, you are. The system you are advocating has no other possible outcome. That may not be your intention, but in the real world just because you don’t want something to happen a certain way does not mean it won’t. Whatever your intention may be the end result is the same.

“And thermodynamics DOES govern the gross character of economic systems.”

So you say, but you have yet to provide any evidence, or say how this could actually be done in practice, and the few predictions you have made based on thermodynamics are all wrong, in fact completely opposite of reality, so I tend to doubt this.

“You may have models of micro-economic behavior, but this will be, at best, a specialised subset of the more general fate of a closed system due to thermodynamical constraints.”

Obviously, and that sort of knowledge is absolutely essential for businesses. Similarly, looking at the whole system is a specialized subset, or at least it is now (as I said before it used to be considered a completely seperate field). People specialize, that is how the world works. People have their area of expertise, and they usually stick with that because they recognize their knowledge is limited in areas outside of their area of expertise.

“In the long run, your economic models won’t matter.”

Depends on your definition of long run and what questions you are asking. If you ask the right questions you can often get very useful predictions of long-term behavior. You have to understand the limitations, however. Besides, in many cases the long-run is not what people are interested in, they are interested in the short-run. But to address your claim directly, in the long run many economic models are very successful.

“It also doesn’t matter if calculating human behavior directly from thermodynamic principles is intractible in practice.”

Of course it does. If thermodynamics cannot actually be used to predict human behavior, then your statements that it is as good at predicting human behavior as economics is incorrect. It is absolutely central to the issue at hand.

“Do you seriously contend that human behavior will supersede the global availability of usable energy? Do you think everything boils down to what people *decide*? This is just Maxwell’s Demon again.”

Strawman again. I never said that. Humans are governed by thermodynamics, I know that. What I am saying thermodynamics is fundamentally inferior at predicting human behavior and explaining human behavior in practice compared to economics because the system is far too complicated for thermodynamics approaches to apply in the vast majority of cases. You said, and I quote, “Second, any competent thermodynamicist knows at least as much about economics as do economists”. If thermodynacis cannot be used in practice to make all the predictions and all the explanations economics does then your statement is incorrect and you do not have the ability to address economic issues based solely on thermodynamics principles.

“That’s the beauty of thermodynamics; it doesn’t matter if you have a theory of human decision making within the system. They are constrained too. A human marooned on an island without food may decide to eat, but it’ll still starve to death.”

Now say there are two people on the island. Can thermodynamics alone be used to predict how they will share food, how they will divide up work, or anything like that?

“Furthermore, aren’t you aware that trading companies have been hiring physics grads for at least the last couple of decades to apply thermodynamics directly to futures (most notably by modelling the market in terms of diffusion)? I personally have known one such gentleman, and I have been aware of the practice in general for years.”

Interesting. So there is one very specialized example where they use fluid dynamics (not thermodynamics) to predict a very specific thing. That still does not support your statement that thermodynamicists are as good at economics as economists.

“Where’re all those economists’ predictive track records I asked for?”

Predictive track records? They have been very good at predicting recessions in a general sense (not necessarily a specific date, but even that is possible). They can also tell you the best behavior after a recession has begun, or what to do during one. How many recessions has thermodynamics correctly predicted? How good is it at telling you how to handle them. It can predict relative prices of goods depending on local market conditions, such as competitors. How good is thermodynamics at predicting prices of goods? It can be used to determine relative prices different people will pay for the same good or service. How good is thermodynamics at predicting that? It can be used to isolate desired individuals from a given population, such as the most dedicated fans at a sports game. Can thermodynamics do that? It can be used to predict the time course of market penetration of a product and relate it to local factors. How often is thermodynamics used to predict this?

Except for the recession bit these are all things I can predict myself with my intermediate-level economics knowledge. The recession bit I have seen predicted myself by others. Unfortunately I gave my textbooks and notes to my sister, so I do not currently have access to more detailed information. But pick up any intermediate-level university economics textbook at your local library if you want examples.

Nope. I never said anything about people getting anything for free. I never said that people who don’t pay taxes ought to be receiving public benefits. I said exactly the opposite; I said that they should be saddled with the consequences of their decisions to either pay or not. This also touches on your statement that I don’t advocate punishment for tax evaders. There’s a big difference between saying that prison isn’t the first thing that comes to my mind and advocating no consequences whatsoever . I am not proposing free anything.

And thermodynamics DOES govern the gross character of economic systems. You may have models of micro-economic behavior, but this will be, at best, a specialised subset of the more general fate of a closed system due to thermodynamical constraints. In the long run, your economic models won’t matter. It also doesn’t matter if calculating human behavior directly from thermodynamic principles is intractible in practice. Do you seriously contend that human behavior will supersede the global availability of usable energy? Do you think everything boils down to what people *decide*? This is just Maxwell’s Demon again. That’s the beauty of thermodynamics; it doesn’t matter if you have a theory of human decision making within the system. They are constrained too. A human marooned on an island without food may decide to eat, but it’ll still starve to death. (There’s an interesting anecdote by Feynman. He did an ordnance calculation at Los Alamos that was coughing up queer looking numbers. After an analysis he discovered that he’d neglected to factor in the heat of the reaction explicitly. Turns out the strange numbers were the heat being manifested nevertheless. Ignore it or not, it’s still there.)

Furthermore, aren’t you aware that trading companies have been hiring physics grads for at least the last couple of decades to apply thermodynamics directly to futures (most notably by modelling the market in terms of diffusion)? I personally have known one such gentleman, and I have been aware of the practice in general for years.

Where’re all those economists’ predictive track records I asked for?

You advocated making taxes voluntary. That is the same thing as advocating no taxes.

“What I did say is that people are bound to get what they’re willing to pay for.”

No, if people can get something for free they will do so.

“What is a government in a civilized society, but a very large company? The citizenry are investors. They pay for their shares and expect benefits. If they don’t get what they paid for, they hold elections to replace the management. You may say that there are key differences, such as perhaps the federal government reserving the power to mint currency. Such things are beside the point. It’s still a matter of investment & return.”

This is utterely irrelevant to the disucssion at hand. This whole thing arose when you said that you don’t think tax offendors should be punished. What does any of this have to do with that statement? This is so far off-topic I don’t even know what is being discussed anymore.

“Second, any competent thermodynamicist knows at least as much about economics as do economists, because that’s what an economic system is, a thermodynamic system. Any claim to the contrary is tantamount to claiming to have discovered a whole new scheme of physical reality.”

This is, quite frankly, silly. Sure you can break anything down to thermodynamics problem if you look at it at a molecular level. But how many people base building designs entirely on thermodynamics principles? How many people build computers using only thermodynamics equations? Sure they may use it in places, but nobody uses only thermodynamics. This is like saying “I am a chemist. Everything is made of chemicals. Therefore I should be just as competent to build a manned spacecraft as an aerospace engineer.” The claim is simply absurd. You take that proposal to NASA, or Boeing, and you will be laughed out of the building. Sure ultimately thermodynamics governs the system, but the thermodynamics is at such a tiny, nanoscopic level that it would be as absurd to try to predict economics based on thermodynamics as it would be to predict next year’s world series scores based on thermodynamics. The system is just far too complicated to make those sorts of predictions. I could say ultimately human behavior is based on electrical activity in the brain, but there is no way I am going to use the Hodgkin and Huxley model of action potentials to try to predict who the next American Idol is. The system is just too complicated, no matter how much detail I might have there is simply no way to model using that approach. So a gross approach would be needed, with the system simplified enough to make analysis possible.

“Your talk of the difference between micro & macro-economics is largely irrelevant; micro-economics amounts to localised fluctuations in the market behavior. It doesn’t matter.”

This just shows how little you know about economics. The fact is that microeconomics does not deal with “localized fluctuations”, it deals with decisions. These decisions are not fluctuations at all, intead they tend towards equilibrium states dictated by overall fluctuations in society at large. That is why microeconomics is so much better at predictions than macroeconomics, it is far more deterministic and thus far more predictable. It is the local systems that are stable, and gross fluctuations in society that upset that stability. Microeconomics amounts to a method to determine what decisions humans will make in specific situations and how to make your own decisions in order to guarantee that the decisions of others benefit you as much as possible. Far from “not mattering”, it ultimately tells consumers and businesses the best way to allocate their resources, and allows people to predict how businessea and consumers will behave given a certain situation. This is essential to minimize costs and maximize profits.

“A box filled with hot gas has local, temporary fluctuations in temperature. Nevertheless, the gas as a whole will tend toward gross equilibrium.”

This “analogy” has absolutely no similarity to economics whatsoever. It is exactly the opposite of economics, where the local systems (which are not markets, or even parts of a market, but specific decisions) tend towards equilibrium while the gross fluctuations happen to the overall system. You have it entirely backwards.

“It’ll do no one any good to claim that an economic system has something a thermal system hasn’t: complex human behavior. That’s merely an appeal to Maxwell’s Demon. But Maxwell’s Demon is just as anchored to the laws of thermodynamics as is the gas-filled box with the little door in the dividing wall. Separating the gas molecules into regions of high vs low temperature itself requires an investment of energy. People are the same way; they are thermodynamic. A so-called economic system has NOTHING which a thermal system hasn’t. They are the same. So I don’t want to hear any more about how economic non-specialists are grossly naive or ignorant about how economics works.”

You have to differentiate between thermal systems in general and thermal systems that are simple enough to be analyzed. Sure everything is a thermal system, but frankly few situations are amenable to thermodynamics analysis because they simply have too many components for a thermodynamics analysis to be feasible. The same is true for chemistry, or particle physics. Ultimately all matter is made of chemicals, all matter is made of subatomics particles. But I challenge anyone to predict human behavior using only chemistry or physics principles.

How many businesses hire thermodynamicists to analyze their business plans? What are the great discoveries made in the study of human financial transactions using thermodynamics? You claim that thermodynamics tells you all you need to know about economics. So where are the economics discoveries being made by thermodynamacists? And why have you made so many patently false statements regarding economics if you understand it so well?

First, I’ve not one single time advocated doing nothing. I’ve not one time advocated a tax base of zero as being personally preferable to the system which we now have. I’m not at all opposed to paying my taxes. I very much enjoy the benefits I get in return. I love my modern lifestyle a great deal. What I did say is that people are bound to get what they’re willing to pay for. What is a government in a civilized society, but a very large company? The citizenry are investors. They pay for their shares and expect benefits. If they don’t get what they paid for, they hold elections to replace the management. You may say that there are key differences, such as perhaps the federal government reserving the power to mint currency. Such things are beside the point. It’s still a matter of investment & return.

Second, any competent thermodynamicist knows at least as much about economics as do economists, because that’s what an economic system is, a thermodynamic system. Any claim to the contrary is tantamount to claiming to have discovered a whole new scheme of physical reality. This is not categorically out of the question. But I tend to think that you probably have not made any such experimentally supported discovery. Your talk of the difference between micro & macro-economics is largely irrelevant; micro-economics amounts to localised fluctuations in the market behavior. It doesn’t matter. A box filled with hot gas has local, temporary fluctuations in temperature. Nevertheless, the gas as a whole will tend toward gross equilibrium. It’ll do no one any good to claim that an economic system has something a thermal system hasn’t: complex human behavior. That’s merely an appeal to Maxwell’s Demon. But Maxwell’s Demon is just as anchored to the laws of thermodynamics as is the gas-filled box with the little door in the dividing wall. Separating the gas molecules into regions of high vs low temperature itself requires an investment of energy. People are the same way; they are thermodynamic. A so-called economic system has NOTHING which a thermal system hasn’t. They are the same. So I don’t want to hear any more about how economic non-specialists are grossly naive or ignorant about how economics works. Economists have no monopoly on a grasp of how the world works. I defy anyone to show otherwise.

Third, I haven’t provided a control group, and that is exactly what I’m getting at in this aspect. Without it I question your whole ability to scientifically demonstrate what you claim about taxpayer behavior. Pointing out that, for all practical purposes, you *can’t* produce such a control group is not equal to being excused from the need for one to make your demonstration. Whereas you assert to actually *know* the answer, my point is that this is an unanswered question, at best. Can you at least produce a documented correspondence between predictions by economists with the actual outcomes of history? Are economists on any better par than the community of astrologers? Are they ever called to task on failed forecasts? What is their track record? Do you even have a well designed poll of taxpayers regarding their motives for compliance? If you don’t, then all you have is speculation and myth.

mu-se-um — A building, place, or institution devoted to the acquisition, conservation, study, exhibition, and educational interpretation of objects having scientific, historical, or artistic value.

So apparently, I’m correct on that count, presuming that religious studies don’t count strictly towards artistic merit.. Pressing on with science now.

2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I’ve got packing a suitcase down to a science.
5. Christian Science.

Ah yes, I forgot about those definitions. Wait a sec, dinosaurs aren’t mentioned anywhere in the bible, last I’d heard.

“Irishman, and TheBlackCat, there is a very definite method of getting remuneration for the use of roads in your example. It’s called a tax on the fuel used. Everyone who fills up their tank, pays it to enable them to drive on the road, and it is a personal matter, as to how efficiently they do so. Whether the system allows certain sectors to not be obliged to pay that tax, such as primary producers, (farmers, as here in Australia), or how authorities deal with the motorist who fills up at the pump and drives off without paying, (thieves, everywhere), is the concern of the Law of the Land.”

You are missing the key factor: the gas stations. You must legally force the gas stations to charge the tax. Otherwise those gas stations that refuse to collect the tax have an major price advantage and will get the majority of the business. So it is ultimately no different, only those being legally forced to pay is different. Ultimately somone will get punished by the legal system if the taxes are not recieved by the government.

I’ve always considered toll booths, as almost as expensive to have as a collection point for tax, as the amount levied for the actual use of the facility, be it an expressway, tunnel or whatever. It can mean a never-ending fund raiser for governments, and they know it. That there are now electronic ways to collect, is usually hidden in other ‘conveniences” such as not having to stop and pay. Try arguing months later when a fine appears in the mail, stating your beeper device did not react on a long forgotten trip on a day that cannot be reconciled.

So the examples as quoted, both mine and those previously, are really side issues. The original issue is to do with the recalcitrance of the so-called “Reverend Gentleman”, and his claim not to pay his way as other citizens are obliged to do. The Law is about to deal with him as other law abiding citizens would wish; the pity is they, or we, all have to pay that little extra to make that happen. That causes friction in the system, in both senses of the word – inefficiency and at least annoyance if he gets away with it.

Ivan.

“TheBlackCat, actually roads are a poor example. At least highways. Tollroads prove an alternate method, toll the people as they drive it. Yes, you have to have collection booths and personnel, but you are only getting the users to pay, and pay based upon use. Streets in towns might be more problematic, not the least of which is the number of access points. Highways have relatively controlled access, so toll booths can be limited and spaced. Streets all crisscross and intersect a bajillion times. Try putting a toll booth at every corner, or even implement a computer tracking system in cars to monitor every turn and path to assess the proper fee per driving.”

I stated that tolls are not allowed. Tolls are used in some cases, but are dreadfully inefficent. They require people waiting in long lines and those lines exact a huge economic cost without any benefit. That is why they are rarely used in relation to the total amount of highway in countries. Thus the requirement that everyone would be allowed to use it, which reflects how the vast majority of roads are set up and would avoid this massive cost. Remember, he is competing with government-funded toll-free roads. Do you think people would use a road where they have to wait in long lines and pay a large fee when there are tax-based alternatives that are cheaper and don’t involve lines?

Besides, how would you make people pay the tolls? What would happen if someone drove right through? How would you punish them if you cannot send them to jail? The tracking system would be even worse because there would be no way to force people to pay. In the end it would still be voluntary.

What Creationists want to see is a massive amount of change, something akin to major body plan alterations. They want a dog to become a rat, or an elephant to grow wings. They won’t accept two types of finches that have different sized beaks and don’t interbreed, either because of physical differences, or courtship rituals, or whatever. The large scale changes do require centuries. Breeding splits can happen in a few decades. The subtle differences are not necessarily obvious, and fit within the “definition” of “microevolution”.

“We are told it takes either eons of time for a change to occur, not 20 years unless you are a bacteria developing antibiotic resistance.

Could this case be more akin to the Kettewell Moth, when all that changed were the ratios of black moths to white moths? ”

Who says that? Darwin, maybe, 150 years ago, although I am not sure even he said that. And even then not eons, maybe thousands or tens of thousands of years. But the idea that evolution must always occur slowly has been abandoned for many decades now, I would be shocked if any reputable evolutionary biologist didn’t strongly disagree with such a claim. Evolution can happen very quickly, and there are many instances of it doing so. In terms of evolution the finch example is easier for evolution to accomplish than antibiotic resistance and should happen faster (in terms of generations) since it does not require new or modified genes.

As for the finches

We are told it takes either eons of time for a change to occur, not 20 years unless you are a bacteria developing antibiotic resistance.

Could this case be more akin to the Kettewell Moth, when all that changed were the ratios of black moths to white moths?

“You say it’s not your job to refute it, yet that’s exactly what you are doing. It’s irrelevant that you say the burden of proof is entirely on me. It’s all on me only if you don’t care what I have to say. But the fact that you keep returning with more demonstrates that you do care; you do wish to convince me. But to convince me (or anyone), you necessarily must use an argument which convinces me, not yourself.”

I gave you the current consensus and the framework behind it. I gave you the arguments that are convincing to the economic community (although there may be more I am not aware of). I gave you reasonable arguments that professionals in the field seem to agree with. It is my responsibility to make you understand the current conensus in the field, reosonable arguments that reasonable professionals in the field find convincing. That is all I have done. But that is as far as my responsibility goes. If you continue to deny it after that it becomes your responsibilty to give eveidence to support your case.

“Having fundamental economic theory and thousands of years of practice is also possible to call into question. Various cultures have had such things on their side for ages. Things such as economic theory are often thought to work flawlessly only becuase of consensus among their adoptors. As it turns out, economists know less about economic dynamics than meteorologists know about the weather, yet how often have weather forecasts been dead wrong just a day after being issued?”

Yet meteorologists can make meaningfull predictions. Low pressure systems will attract weather. High pressure systems will drive it away. Humidy over the dew point will cause precipitation. Clouds lower the temperature. These are all things that meteorologists can be fairly confident about. Economics is similar. They cannot predict the behavior of the whole system. Any economist will tell you that is absurd. But there are nevertheless a great many things of which economists can be reasonably, or in some cases extremely, confident. Things which have been shown over and over. Things that deal with invariant rules governing human behavior or even the mathematics of systems. You must remember there are two branches of economics, micro and macro. We are dealing with microeconomics here, which by far does a much better job, in fact an extremely good job, of explaining and predicting human behavior. It is used with great success constantly by a great many people. But it tends to deal with simpler systems, particularly interactions involving only a single product or a few competing products. It doesn’t attempt to determine the behavior of the entire system, only answer specific questions. And it does this extremely well. This would be akin to meteorologists looking at the affect of cloud cover on temperature (increase or decrease), or the effect water concentration in the air and the temperature on the presence or absence of preciptation. Macroeconomics asks far larger and more complicated questions involving a massive number of components, often over long periods of time. These questions are much harder to answer and the answers much more tentative, much more akin to weather forecasts. You can’t make complaints about the issues with macroeconomics and somehow then use that as evidence against microeconomics. They are practically different fields, in fact up until rather recently they were considered different fields. That is just a strawman.

“The economy is a highly complex system, which includes human neurotic behavior. It also includes the fact that there is no free market, based entirely upon value being traded for equal value. The modern market is driven heavily by the motive to sell for significantly more value than the buyer will get out of the merchandise. Buyers are routinely lied to in order to persuade them to make a purchase. There is no free market.”
This is not in contradiction to microeconomics theory nor is it the absence of free market. This is very much a free market, and very much a prediction of microenomic theory in a free market. Microeconomic theory predicts, and we see, that businesses attempt to drive up the quantity demanded at a given price by driving up demand, thus increasing their revenue. This is exactly what microeconomics predicts. In microeconomics there is no such thing as an inherent “value” to a product. Microeconomics holds this to be a myth. Nothing has inherent value. Products only have the value that people place on them. If business can increase the percieved value of a product they will do so. This is precisely trading things of equal value, only it is trading them at the value people put on them not some imaginary “real” value. And technically “value” isn’t even the right term, it would be “demand”. What you seem to be calling value is based partly on price and the availability of something. Lower availability will increase the percieved value of something to consumers but reduce the percieved value of something to businesses.

“The modern market is not realistically modelled by economists, who have been known to be entirely mystified by anomalous events in the market. They are, marginally, practitioners of voodoo.”

That is macroeconomics. We are not talking about macroeconomics, thus it has no bearing on the discussion. Microeconomics does not attempt to predict the behavior of markets.

“Modern economics works because the population predominantly buys into it. There is consensus in practice. ”

No, as you just demonstrated most people don’t have a clue about economics. I have talked to a great many people in a great many places and few understand economics, only those people who have been formally trained in it. Like you, many people think they do to. But thinking they understand something and actually understanding it are two entirely different things. Economics is followed because it works, business who listen to its predictions are successful and those that don’t are not. It is as simple as that. Misconceptions regarding economics are rampant. Also, the study of economics is only a few hundred years old. But looking back it applies equally well to times long before its study had even been developed and its key principles outlined. So obviously it is not dependent on people knowing it because it applies even to system where nobody is even aware of its existence.

“As for your thought experiment with public roads and other such services, that is beside my point. I’ve no delusion that such things would be provided without a massive tax base levied by a non-profit government. I’ve never said that the things we take for granted from our government are likely to be solvent without a universal source of revenue.”

No, that is not what you claime earlier. You said:

“People should be entitled to what they bargain & pay for. If people don’t want to pay taxes, then they’ll just have to live with the results. What people as a population really, truly want will come out in the wash. That’s a process of selection.”

You are claiming that what societies want can truly be gained without taxes. I, and economics and history, say this is incorrect. You say it is correct, yet seem to have no evidence to back up this claim.

“What you’ve done is to presume that, since we do now have and enjoy such amenities as traffic police, toxic cleanup crews, and so on, that we must necessarily have them. This is just you making up the rules.”

No, it is not. You can look around the world and see these sorts of things. Countries in a state of anarchy, countries whose governments cannot support basic necessities of their people. You want control groups? Look around you. These sorts of experiments happen all the time. And the results are obvious. It does not work.

“If the funding were not in place for such things, then of course they wouldn’t be had. There are places all over the world where such things cannot be paid for, even by the local governments, and so the people don’t have them.”

Yes, and such countries are invariantly unsuccessful.

“Even here in the United States we do, in fact, have a finite tax base, and so the services provided by that base are also finite. There must be all sorts of things we could have in this country, if only the tax base could be orders of magnitude larger. But it’s not, and we have only what can be afforded. Were there no tax base whatsoever, with all services being provided by the private sector on a cash basis, then we’d still have only what could be afforded. That’s how it’s always been, finite.”"

Of course it is finite. But finite and zero are two entirely different things. Certainly we have to pick and choose what we want. But you are suggesting we do nothing, we have tax revenue of zero. How many countries with no tax revenue or unenforcable taxes are successful? How many are not? How many have a high standard of living? How many have a low one?

“…and incidentally, you haven’t provided a control group.”

and incidentally, neither have you. In fact, you haven’t supplied any evidence whatseover supporting your position. Control groups are not always possible, even in “hard” sciences. You seem to demand extremely stringent requirements from economics but demand absolutely nothing, no evidence whatsoever, from your own pet hypothesis. You don’t even have a logical argument showing why this should work. You are not going to convince the economics community, or me, that you are right simply by pocking holes in current economics, especially when you use strawman arguments such as attacking completely unrelated branches of economics. You must supply positive evidence and arguments supporting your conclusion.

You say it’s not your job to refute it, yet that’s exactly what you are doing. It’s irrelevant that you say the burden of proof is entirely on me. It’s all on me only if you don’t care what I have to say. But the fact that you keep returning with more demonstrates that you do care; you do wish to convince me. But to convince me (or anyone), you necessarily must use an argument which convinces me, not yourself.

Having fundamental economic theory and thousands of years of practice is also possible to call into question. Various cultures have had such things on their side for ages. Things such as economic theory are often thought to work flawlessly only becuase of consensus among their adoptors. As it turns out, economists know less about economic dynamics than meteorologists know about the weather, yet how often have weather forecasts been dead wrong just a day after being issued? The economy is a highly complex system, which includes human neurotic behavior. It also includes the fact that there is no free market, based entirely upon value being traded for equal value. The modern market is driven heavily by the motive to sell for significantly more value than the buyer will get out of the merchandise. Buyers are routinely lied to in order to persuade them to make a purchase. There is no free market. The modern market is not realistically modelled by economists, who have been known to be entirely mystified by anomalous events in the market. They are, marginally, practitioners of voodoo.

Modern economics works because the population predominantly buys into it. There is consensus in practice. The Classical Chinese civilization worked for similar reasons. As long as only a negligible portion of society failed to comply, the Emperor was able to live in the Forbidden City. As long as most of the people who visit Las Vegas gamble in the casinos, the hotels can afford to offer low cost steak & lobster. When economic systems work, it only means that the bulk of their users buy into it. When that changes, the whole system collapses. Classical China disappeared, the Soviet Union disintegrated, etc.

As for your thought experiment with public roads and other such services, that is beside my point. I’ve no delusion that such things would be provided without a massive tax base levied by a non-profit government. I’ve never said that the things we take for granted from our government are likely to be solvent without a universal source of revenue. What you’ve done is to presume that, since we do now have and enjoy such amenities as traffic police, toxic cleanup crews, and so on, that we must necessarily have them. This is just you making up the rules. If the funding were not in place for such things, then of course they wouldn’t be had. There are places all over the world where such things cannot be paid for, even by the local governments, and so the people don’t have them. Even here in the United States we do, in fact, have a finite tax base, and so the services provided by that base are also finite. There must be all sorts of things we could have in this country, if only the tax base could be orders of magnitude larger. But it’s not, and we have only what can be afforded. Were there no tax base whatsoever, with all services being provided by the private sector on a cash basis, then we’d still have only what could be afforded. That’s how it’s always been, finite.