The situation in France is that there are a lot of farmers on very small plots of land and they need to be propped up by the taxpayers at large. Incidentally to get over the shortage of land at home, French wine interests have invested bigtime in South Australia.

What factors would you take into account if you were planning to argue in favour of raising the tariff on cars, shoes and clothes to their previous level? And if you are not prepared to make that case, why not? The makers of cars, shoes and clothes will love you!

“Data and events in our memory banks that don’t support our position or emotional state meet the fate of all such data, regardless of the analytical application.”

It’s a pity that he gets such a good run in the Age. No matter what the subject I always like to read contrarian views - but only if they have something to offer. In this case, I’m afraid it just ain’t so.

The greatest dangers are state-protected monopolies where the issue is quite clear-cut. The are potentially bad and dangerous in all sorts of ways.

When you get into things that involve the possibility of cruelty and inhumane actions then of course moral and ethical issue need to be considered along with the economics of the case and maybe in defiance of the economics. Slavery is an obvious case and you need to realise that classical liberals are not just concerned about markets, we are also concerned about the rule of law and the moral framework as well.

The reason I say this is, that while I understand the logic in what you write, I *feel* that this last comment is taking something to a logical conclusion of some sort, whereas in reality, logical conclusions are not taken. In logic and pure mathematics (in using proof by contradiction), one might use an argument appealing to the logical conclusion of an argument, but I feel that this is not authentic in politics (and economics).

I feel, without speaking on his behalf, that Rafe’s argument is about special interests using their situations to benefit themselves selfishly at the expense of the general public, and there are innumerable examples of this happening.

About your question - “does the right to make money trump social responsibility?” I suppose that the starting point to think about this is to work out everyone’s responsibilities. What are everyone’s legal responsibilities? If one can legally do something (eg make money) then is it some kind of ethical consideration as to whether you make money in what others might think is a slightly unethical way? Should ethics be legislated for? How would one legislate this way?