1. The fact-y bits themselves don’t care whether we agree on them or not. That’s actually the beauty of fact-y bits. :)

2. We could indeed get into an “essential function” debate – which would end up just ferreting out our respective values. In an absolute sense, nothing is “essential” – including life. Things are only “essential“ in the sense that they are prerequisites for other things.

“I guess my point was that paternalistic coercion rejects equality between people and their government, not between individual people.”

Yes, I get that, but it’s a statement of the very heart of the problem with socialism. Unless, you are governed by a computer, your government is composed of individuals. Look, you wouldn’t be happy with an absolute monarchy, would you? And the reason you wouldn’t is that the king is just an ordinary schlub in fancy clothes who has vastly more power than everyone else. It doesn’t change the relationship to cross out “king” and write in “government”. Democratic institutions help, but Australia is a democracy and some overactive legislator or trumped up little bureaucrat still gets to forbid you to take your leftovers home. The core principle of conservatism is simply that, since government is an inherently dangerous necessity, we ought to keep it as small as possible. If we don’t, we will get tyranny eventually. The scope creep (i.e. what constitutes “essential”) is the rub. I tossed public sanitation onto the list (because I think it is essential) but there were many people in the early 19th century who didn’t think it was the government’s concern. We have dug our way down to the crux of the matter.

“In this way I advocate a sort of milder form of coercion: people only ought to be coerced into things they want to be coerced into. Does that make any sense?”

I believe I understand your intent – I just don’t think it works that way with real human beings. Call me a cynic – but I don’t.

“I agree wholeheartedly with the denotation of this paragraph, although I reject the implication that basic income represents "creeping totalitarianism". Like I said earlier, "the basic income as I envision it would tend to protect its citizens from inability to earn money, and the protection from their actions would be a side effect.”

Ok – we not only have differences about the definition of “essential,” but also about the definition of “earn”. Under a basic income scheme, people would “earn” money not by productive activity, but simply by existing. I had two uncles (one now deceased) who were both on disability. Neither of them was anything close to bedridden. They got around, visited, worked on projects at home, and did all sorts of things. They were not unable to work. They were only unable to do the jobs they had once done. On the other hand, I know two completely blind people and quite a few developmentally disabled people who do work – and not just meaningless make-work jobs either. What on earth is fair about the government taking taxes from a blind man and giving the money to someone with a slightly bad back?

Rats – I’m out of lunch hour… Quite an interesting discussion, BTW.