It's been interesting to see the reaction to my blog on the logic of tax justice.
Tim Worstall issued one of his usual diatribes which are great for increasing traffic on my site but will, we can be sure, be rejected as eccentric (or worse) by any reasonable person. His specialism appears to be ultra-market, anti-all government thinking, but he also appears quite unable to see the faults in the model he supports, which I highlighted. The concept of democracy clearly seems to pass him by.
As for Richard Brown, whose comments gave rise to the piece, he refers to Tim Worstall's comments with approval and appears to be on the peripheries of that camp. But at least he tried to address the points I raised. He did so by suggesting I raised a 'straw man' in my arguments. The trouble was he failed to realise was he failed to realise that the straw man I used was in fact the model of market economics itself. As a result all his rebuttals do in fact support my case since he is of course right to say that this is mathematically flawed. It does not and cannot work mathematically because economists made a simple error when creating it which is to assume that a number which is very close to zero behaves as if it is zero, and that is very far from the truth. So all his argument proves is that market theory cannot work.
In which case something has to go in its place because the result of unfettered markets is bound to be sub-optimal. Democratic government is my alternative choice. That requires tax. Those who do not like the ideas I have proposed seem to think otherwise.
The choice is at least apparent and stark. So apparent that we feel quite justified in ignoring these people most of the time.