Government was supposed only to interfere where the normal course of private business failed for some exceptional reason, or where a civic good could not be satisfactorily provided by private endeavours. Many factors have arisen to obscure this reasonable view, chief of which is a breed of professional politicians needing to advance their careers, and the interests associated with that process, such as the Press - besides a more complex society. Nobody previously considered this process in terms of morality, but politicians will try any form of representation that they think will suit them. Whatever Gordon Brown says looks like being less relevant than the effect of external events. The Falklands is thought to have helped Thatcher survive, so you could say the Argentinians interfered in the process of British government. The immediate question would seem to be, will Al Quaeda have a similar effect, and in what way?

Henry Percy, London, UK

Who says voters like moralising poiticos? Isn't it eqaully plausible that, since they're all at it, the fact that they pick up support is despite rather than because of the moralising? - Then again, maybe I'm just revelling in being a pedantic lawyer.

Redcliffe, London,

"They say nothing of sufficient substance to suggest that they can answer this question." I think Gordon Brown is eminently well equipped to answer this question, having a decent grasp of economics and philosophy. Looking for one correct answer is illusory, but given that most people, including our prime minister, believe to some extent in progressive taxation, the direction of the reply should be clear. To frame the question as being unanswerable and somehow crucial is wrong and deceptive on both counts. And by the way, what is Peter Croft on about, and why?

Nik Shah, London,

Always good to read Jamie - my only complaint is that we don't get enough of him. Excellent example at the end as well to demonstrate how easy it is to show the folly of most government.

Tim, London,

Hasn't every Socialist leader or government anywhere in the world always told its people that their government's only thought is for the welfare of the people. There are still people in Russia who feel proud of their communist leader Joseph Stalin, despite sending an alleged twenty seven million of his countrymen to slave camps and death. They say they like strong leaders !

Phil de Buquet, Newport, England

"Identifying the ends to which the nation’s resources and the state’s powers of compulsion should be turned is an awesome moral responsibility.
But this is where the public get it a bit wrong. Even if a politician is a good person, he can never really know whether he is doing the right thing. Because, as the economist Friedrich Hayek showed, such knowledge is humanly impossible."
Jamie,
I disagree fundamentally with that. It is a falsehood, although I don't doubt that Hayek was half right as it will be by Artificial Intelligence that such knowledge will be/is made available....Via Virtualising CyberIntelAIgents ...which Creates a Mutually Beneficial Managed Global Perception for Orders/Status Quo Administrations to Deliver Service rather than Power.

A Subtle, yet Seismic Semantic Shift for Paradigm Change which AI Pioneers in Operating Systems InterNetworking have Cracked and are Cracking wide Open [with the Injection of NeuReal, SurReal Binary CodeXXXX and 0day Trading XPloits]

amanfromMars, Seventh Heaven, Global Communications HQ

Does anybody else think that this 'Jack and Jill' scenario isactually quite simple, assuming there are no other events or forces (eg children, pensioners) in play?

CFG, WGC, UK

Well done.
It is clear that the more government does for us the less we as individuals are free to run our own affairs. I believe Prof Parkinson (Parkinson's law chappie) thought that once government took more than 35 % of GDP to spend on our behalf we were losing our freedom and rapidly as the percentage increased. Just as the task of keeping inflation within a target was passed to the Bank of England why can't the tax-raising authorities be given the task of keeping the tax take within a target -say 36-38%? At the moment government announces it is going to do good things for us and then takes money out of our pockets, squanders it and then goes back to the well for more.

Dr J.Findlater, Carnforth,

The Landsburg question has been framed so as to be unanswerable. It's impossible to discuss the morality of taxation without also taking into account the method and morality with which the taxable income has been generated. Let's assume in Landsburg's case that Jack's $10,000 income came from 90 hours a week of hard manual labour, 50 weeks a year, and that Jill's $100,000 came entirely from rent paid by Jack and others in a similar situation to his. Jack's rent was $7,000, to be paid out of his $10,000 income, leaving him with just about enough to feed himself and his family on. Then he's asked for a water-tax of £1,000, 95% of which is used to pay officials to push paper about. Now I'd suggest that a system that causes such arrangements is an immoral one.

Alternatively, Jill may do 95% of all the constructive work in the community for her $100k, while Jack misappropriates his $10k through a protection racket. The water tax contributions seem to be immoral, but in a different way.

Simon Stephenson, Windermere, UK

Actually, I've heard enough Labourites saying that the triouble with Tony Blair was God to disagree. What the poublic want is the real world's unfathomable complexities boiled down to a simple proposition- it's the economy, stupid. Long live affluenza!

Maggie, London,

Every comment I read about Gordon Brown shows that the press cannot make him out at all, even after 13 years in the public eye, I suggest the reason is that most politicians and journalists live in world of communication, words and gestures. Brown lives in the world of thoughts and actions. Brown's morality is not an attempt to be liked or to grow a halo, but an attempt to work out the right answer to difficult questions. Of course, he's quite likely to choose the wrong answer, particularly as he doesn't listen.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

I have a simple view, anyone who has to tell me they are good is probably stone cold evil.

Perhaps the only reason he tells us he is a good man is because the notion that Gordon is a good man would never cross anyone's mind.

Edward Andrew Green, Upminster, England

If the annual average educational spend were to rise to £8,500 per state school pupil, a useful comparable figure might be the estimated £40,000 per year to keep an inmate in prison.

Quite apart from the ‘unfairness’ of the difference, there might be a perception of greater good if a larger increase in the former were met by a reduction in the number of the latter, and which could be shown to have resulted from that change.

dr venables preller, Warminster, UK

If Gordon Brown is genuine in his efforts to convince the electorate he is an honest politician, let him make a clear and irrevocable statement that he will not follow through with his pledge to donate 8.6 BILLION POUNDS of tax payers money for the Education of African Children.

This money is a politicians delight because that is where it will end up in their pockets.

Burt, Romford, UK

When Disraeli was told that Plamerston, aged 78, as having an affair with a married woman, he groaned ' Don't let it get out or he'll sweep the country.'

Peter Croft, Cambridge , UK