I must say I'm entirely with CdM on this one. And not just because I don't like cars, either. Last time I got made redundant, the government didn't step in with a cash injection to my company so it could keep me on. But it did provide benefits until I found a new job. I'd have thought that the task of the government in cases like this is to try to help people back into work - which this government has done admirably with its various schemes - rather than artificially subsidise a company that clearly isn't going anywhere. If you think that it should do that, then at what point do you call it a day? Would Rover still exist in 50 years' time as a bizarre, quaint hangover from the past, pointlessly making useless things, a kind of manufacturing Sisyphus, paid for by the government simply because it's a grand old institution, like the monarchy? I'd say that if there is a point at which you just can't do any more, and surely there is, then that point has been reached.

Hi all! Sorry about the AVMA débacle. I really rather thought there'd be internet in ONE of the hostels I was staying in. But alas, twas not to be. Looks like it's going at a rollocking pace since I left though so I shan't intefere :)

I googled Peter Singer -- see, e.g. here. He's a hard-line utilitarian, who believes that defective newborn babies should be killed, and that meat-eating is wrong. Is his argument for taxes that the government will use our money more wisely than we will?

[Raak] Sorry, I haven't looked it up yet and I can't remember all the details of the argument off the top of my head. I'll try and find it and post it for critical review here, as I found it pretty persuasive I must admit. (BTW, aren't you a hardline utilitarian too? The Rover argument hints that you are.)

Mm. On second thought, maybe it doesn't. I think the gist of the Singer argument on tax is that we all subsist within superstructures of wealth, and that "your" money wouldn't buy you anything without those superstructures, and those superstructures have costs that you don't generally pay directly, but you can, sort of, in a way, if you will, pay them indirectly via tax. But as I say, I don't remember the detail and may have that wrong.

Ah, he gives a précis'd version of the argument on this page. It's sort of how I put it, but not quite.

[Projoy] I've always thought of Raak as more of a libertarian. But I would be interested to know how he describes himself. As for "whose money is it anyway", variants of that kind of argument certainly predate Singer. Broadly speaking I take the view that our ability to transact is only secured by governments that protect property rights, enforce contracts, jail muggers (unless they are managing large corporations, of course), that kind of thing. The social contract that we agree to is that, in return for these guarantees, we accept that governments have the right to tax us. And once that right is established, there are then good public policy arguments for various kinds of taxing and spending by government. That's pretty loosely articulated, but then it is very late here in Singapore. :-)

[CdM] Libertarian, definitely. And there is a libertarian answer to the question of how things could work without governments, for which see David Friedman's book The Machinery of Freedom (which I haven't read, but I have read a lot of his postings to Usenet). He has a web site with related essays and sample chapters from the book.
       The problem with the social contract idea is that it isn't a contract in any reasonable sense of the word. I don't have a choice about it (beyond emigrating to live under someone else's social contract) and its terms are nowhere defined. In practice, they are defined as obligating people and governments to do exactly what the person invoking it thinks they ought to do. It's as empty as religionists explaining how the elephant got its nose by saying God made it that way.
       [Projoy] I don't see there (in the "Compassionate Conservatism and Tax Cuts" section) any argument that these things must be done by governments, only the unsupported assertion accompanied by (to borrow an epithet he uses a few sentences later) a simplistic caricature of the idea. So where he says that "it's our money" is a simplistic and indefensible way to think about tax, I would say it's a simplistic and defensible way to think about tax.
       Something that might be worth reading alongside Singer's utilitarian writings is C. S. Lewis' The Abolition Of Man.

Yes, obviously the argument is worked through a bit better in his book. But regarding the social contract, I'm more with CdM, on the assumption that when he says "we agree" he's using it as shorthand for "we accept perforce as the collective behaviour of our species, appreciate the logic, whether we agree or not, and find a way of functioning within the social contract". As a bleeding-heart liberal, the trouble I always have with libertarian arguments (at least as I've heard them advanced) is they are fundamentally unempathetic and callous. They also tend to massively overestimate the effectiveness of individual choice compared to collective effort and, critically, most people's reasoning ability. I'm not being snobby here, I just mean that there isn't time in a human's life to individually negotiate the details of their relationship, financial or otherwise, to everyone they deal with: hence trade unions, hence law, hence social conventions, hence - in short - collectivisation. Libertarianism to me is fine in smaller, simple communities than our current ones, but personally I'd rather have electricity, free internet infrastructure, safe dwellings and (when necessary) unemployment benefit than a basket of berries and nowt else.