“does anyone have suggestions about the best places or sites to discover new books?”

It’ll probably be no help at all, but, “the one in Notting Hill that’s closest to the station“. For £5 I got a veritable armful – sex, drugs and Primo Levi.

And if I really want to browse and perhaps buy up to £50-worth of DTF delights, my Freedom Pass will take me to the Charing Cross Road and Foyle’s…

A good independent is usually best – most will have a fairly diverse stock, even the ones that don’t do second hand books. Though if you can’t find one of those were you live, the internets is probably better than chain bookshops.

Bullshit.

But then most of what you say stinks of the stuff.

Err, no, allow me to correct that for you:

“Oh yes, sorry, I forgot. Not wanting market forces to dictate absolutely anything is exactly the same as Soviet Communism.”

In this society we have, this liberal capitalism, market forces do not dictate absolutely anything. They don’t even determine most things.

See civil society above.

There’s a place for the market. We might disagree on where those are: but denying that there is any place for markets is exactly what does lead to the hellhole of Soviet Communism.

Oh yes, sorry, I forgot. Not wanting market forces to dictate absolutely everything is exactly the same as Soviet Communism.

I suspect at this point our views may be irreconcilable ;p

More or fewer choices than those available under the tyranny of the majority which is what a “truly democratic” society would be?

For example, under liberal capitalism there are capitalist forms of organisation: as there are also co operative, mutual, not for profit, State owned and run and so on.

Which other system would offer more choice than this?

It might be what all those things are for, but for some of us it’s also what the state is for. And it also suggests that there might be better ways of running things than liberal capitalism, which as I’ve suggested restricts people to a particular set of choices (a soft option might be a society based on co-operative values, for example, which would develop a further range of choices).

Great, have fun. That’s what the Women’s Institute, the Scouts, coffee mornings, the Great British Pub and all the rest of civil society are about. People do indede like doing things when others also do them. Not much fun in a solo Dib Dib Dib after all.

But what’s that got to do with you using the monopoly of violence we afford the State to insist that I pay for your desires?

“I was merely postulating what a fun, erudite and culturally interesting world we’ll all live in when market forces dictate everything.”

Having lived for a number of years in the rubble of a society (Russia) where market forces were specifically and deliberately excluded from influencing let alone dictating anything I think you’ll find that the fun, erudition and cultural excitement come from the market not its exclusion.

So a service that not many people want is provided by not many people? And the problem with this is?

**

No problem at all, Tim.

I was merely postulating what a fun, erudite and culturally interesting world we’ll all live in when market forces dictate everything. God I love clone towns.

You can’t seriously be suggesting that people believe they are being asked if they personally would pay higher taxes while every other person’s taxes in the UK were kept the same/lower.

I’m happy to compromise on “our” taxes rather than “my” or “everyone else’s” taxes if you feel that makes the statement more coherent. The point is that often people would like to exercise a choice that’s contingent on other people doing likewise. Slipping a fiver into the till at Borders now and then (essentially what I’m doing if I buy a book there rather than through Amazon does not guarantee that other people will do the same; support through an instrument like taxation would, which is why I brought it up. (Again, I’m not proposing that we prop Borders up; it’s just an example.)

“if not enough people share your predeliction for Borders existing then how is a “more democratic framework” going to help? Only 8% of the Great British Public buy a book each year so how are you going to get 51% support for subsidies to bookshops?”

If not enough people share my predilection for Borders existing then it won’t help. But it’s entirely possible that, like me, there are enough people who rarely or never shop there who want Borders to exist (perhaps they want it to be there just in case, or they have relatives or friends who use it). A purely market-based framework can’t tell us the answer to that, but a deliberative framework could. Your argument seems to be that if they really wanted it to be there, they’d use it, which I’ve shown is not necessarily true.

Now, I’ll repeat that I’m not proposing that we prop Borders up. I’m just using it as an example to make a point.

Well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that, Timmeh. But I’m glad you admit you’re talking out of your hat!

No, the question usually asked is along the lines of “Would you be willing to pay more taxes for a better NHS/education system/more international aid?”.

It is not asked as “would you be willing to pay more taxes if everyone else did?”

“but it would be a coherent argument to say that “I buy books online most of the time, but I would like Borders to be subsidised out of my taxes so that it’s open for business should I ever wish to use it”.”

No it wouldn’t. Why bring the tax system into it at all? Coherence would be “I don’t buy much at Borders but I like the fact that it’s there which is why I go in and slip a fiver into the till now and then.”

An alterative coherent statement would be “I buy books online most of the time, but I would like Borders to be subsidised out of everyone else’s taxes so that it’s open for business should I ever wish to use it” but that’s, while coherent, not a statement likely to garner a great deal of support.

“So you’ve checked all the tax returns, accounts, receipts and bank statements for every single Self Assessment taxpayer for the year 2006? ”

Most droll. No, The Treasury keeps statistics on how many people make voluntary donations to the Taxman. And you can too if you’d like! Simply send your cheque to “The Accountant”, 2 Horse Guards Road, London, SW1.

They’ll even send you a thank you letter.

“I should also perhaps add that a free market makes certain choices for me by framing decisions in a particular context. It creates different rational choices than would exist in a more deliberative, democratic framework.”

Erm, if not enough people share your predeliction for Borders existing then how is a “more democratic framework” going to help? Only 8% of the Great British Public buy a book each year so how are you going to get 51% support for subsidies to bookshops?

“In a niche market, however (under free market conditions), if there is not much demand for a service, then that service will be few and far”

So a service that not many people want is provided by not many people? And the problem with this is?

In the example of someone who prefers shopping at Borders and will seek out a Borders rather than go in a different bookstore, they now won’t shop at Borders because a decision has been made for them.

Now, in the case of Borders, overall it’s not that big a deal – it’s not a niche market, so people have other options. In a niche market, however (under free market conditions), if there is not much demand for a service, then that service will be few and far between or non-existent for the people who do want to use that service.

And I think that would be a huge shame in a lot of cases (though obviously you can’t prop everything up).

So you’ve checked all the tax returns, accounts, receipts and bank statements for every single Self Assessment taxpayer for the year 2006?

Blimey.

Your model doesn’t allow for the possibility that people would like to have something available without necessarily using it. I’m not proposing this as policy, but it would be a coherent argument to say that “I buy books online most of the time, but I would like Borders to be subsidised out of my taxes so that it’s open for business should I ever wish to use it”. Your argument is the crudest form of a false consciousness argument I’ve ever heard.

Well, yes, I am actually. It’s the concept of “revealed preferences”.

What people say about what they’d like or would do is rather less important than what they actually go out and do.

As an example, many say they’d be happy to pay higher taxes. Tens of percents of the population in fact when people go around with a clipboard asking them.

But the last time I checked the figures (2006 I think) there were in fact only 5 people who had paid extra taxes that year and four of those were dead.

In short, pay less attention to what people say and more to what they do.

Where did that come from? It’s exactly people like me who support your right to do anything you damn well want with your money: you want to shop at an independent then you go right ahead.

Why on earth would you think that a free marketeer would oppose your making choices in a free market?

As to Borders: technological change. Wouldn’t be at all surprised to see others go as well.