Today the norm for Australian governments is more often to ban land clearing. However if you are prohibited from clearing land then you have an incentive to ensure that land that currently lays fallow is routinely slashed to avoid the growth of any forest cover. There is no incentive in growing a crop that can’t legally be harvested. This is a pity because Agroforestry has a lot of potential both economically and environmentally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agroforestry

What is also often forgotten is that most of the early national parks in the world, including in Australia, started out as private ventures in the form of trusts or similar such structures. The concept of conservation was not initiated by the government sector.

Most of the really horrendous deforestation in the world occurs in places like Brazil where the government continues to offer subsides in the way of further land grants for those that clear land. Or else in places like Malaysia where the land is government owned.

Without freedom and secure land rights the ability of custodians to innovate and experiment and profit from land management is curtailed.

Time and time again, capitalists have killed off the goose that laid the golden egg. The US is littered with ghost towns where short-sighted men raped the land and then left.

James, human progress is punctuated by “ghost towns” and so on. It’s not the fault of capitalism or the free market; but the fault of progress and what Scumpeter called “Creative Destruction.

Incidentally, this same progress, delivered as it was by the free market and competition, has led to cleaner sources of energy and better, more efficient modes of production. These improvements haven’t been made thanks to government intervention or central planning.

As for the ‘Boom and Bust Cycle‘, Mises has a particularly interesting article on its causes, and how those vile Central Banking institutions are involved. Forget this nonsense about ‘Boom and Bust’ having anything to do with the Austrian brand of Capitalism.

Cheif among the Keynsian economic arguments is (the absurdity) that government is required to run those services that the market (supposedly) cannot deliver efficiently. A particularly current example would be water.

Government control of water has exacerbated the water crisis in this country, because the price of water as its sold today does not reflect its value, its preciousness and its scarcity, thus making its waste all the more likely. On top of this, the government made it illegal for the private citizen to get his water from other than the government approved water company.

Only recently were State Goverments surrounding the Murray-Darling basin forced to lift laws banning the use of private domestic water tanks (with the possible exception of SA). I remind you that these laws stayed in place during one of the worst drought periods in Australia’s history. Action by the government was prompted only when the reservoirs were half full, making any meaningful conservation too little too late.

We now have State Governments impotently scrambling for a solution to our water problems. First, they thought they could legislate human behaviour modification by announcing water restrinction, hoping to make people conserve more. This has had mixed results. Seeing that their rain-dancing Shamans weren’t doing much, they concocted the desperate, ridiculously expensive and environmentally unwise proposal of a de-salinization plant. Another case of throwing money at a problem so easily solved by bringing in the market; were water priced at its real value instead of being so heavily subsidised, customers would have a powerful incentive to conserve water. We’re property rights respected, customers themselves would have invested in water tanks, place grey water recycling units and other such measures long before they became necessitated by drought.

If governments then feel that certian groups of society would be deprived of access to water because of price, they can re-direct whatever funds they have available in discount schemes and subsidies for them. This would save money for the government, help those in need, and conserve water all in the one go.

I wonder what Keynsian voodoo nonsense James will subject us too now, in light of this very Austrian and very Libertarian method of handling things? I know how terribly allergic they can be towards the proactive nature of individuals, instead of reactionary bureaucrats and their paper-pushing.

Nobody says the invisible hand fixes everything… but that it works is beyond any doubt. They “system” that people are gaming is called voluntary exchange. Not so scary when you call it by it’s real name.

Yes, capitalism has business cycles. So what? Better than stagnation. Yes, capitalism involves income inequality. So it should. Diversity is a good thing. Nobody believes in living in a perfectly equal world.

No, capitalism doesn’t lead to ecological disaster. The environment of capitalist countries are consistently better than the environments of socialist countries. The reality is that people generally look after their own lands.

James… I didn’t get past your weird Afghanistan reference. The “love it or leave it” mentality helps nobody.

Here is the democrats’ immigration policy:

http://www.democrats.org.au/do.....n_2007.pdf

“The Australian Democrats immigration policy is based on non-discrimination and gives priority to refugees and family reunion.”

That’s a funny definition of “non-discriminatory” you’ve got there Andrew.

In effect you discriminate in favor of the groups who provide Australia with least net benefit, at the expense of those who provide the most (Business Migrants, Students and Skilled Migrants.

Yes, actually, Antish – the LDP does differ in that respect. The LDP opposes government-funded healthcare. If you injured yourself by riding with no helmet on, you & you alone would be expected to pay for your medical bills – or your private health fund, of course. Thus, it doesn’t hurt anyone else. Ditto seatbelts. (Not speeding – the LDP advocates setting limits & punishing violations, which is consistent with libertarianism as getting a license/registering a car implies acceptance of road rules).