Interested to know if the articles are socialist drivel (as per the OP) or do we actually need reform in these areas?
Or are they socialist propaganda and we actually need reform in these areas? Propaganda doesn't mean drivel, it means attempting to influence to further an agenda. If there is an important ethical concern, it might be the right thing to do to attempt to influence others so that they help address it. Whether that is justified would depend on the soundness of the argument.
I'm sorry what? No one is advocating socialism, not least Saul Eastlake. And the Fin Review is most certainly not left-wing (whatever the hell the left stands for these days). Go visit China for a year and come back and tell me we are in danger of turning socialist. That's just unhinged to think the Fin Review is advocating we turn our economy into China's.
That paragraph of mine was to refute the false dichotomy of propaganda OR need for reform, and to assert that the focus should be on the soundness of the argument regardless of the messenger or the medium. I also have been using 'socialist' tongue in cheek as clearly we are not talking about socialising the means of production. Seems tongue-in-cheekedness does not translate well in a forum format, so I hereby apologise unambiguously :p
So back to the ethics of financial optimisation...
In the book
Predictably Irrational, a set of studies on human behaviours was described in which cash was handed out according to how many correct answers were given, and in some instances it was made possible to cheat (for example by self assessment). Furthermore, in some cases instead of being paid immediatly the participants were given tokens to walk accross the room to exchange for cash. Cheating was found to rise significantly as soon as there was any abstraction or steps between the act and the cash. Several financial scandals were cited as evidence of this phenomenon in real life.
MMM in his talk said that the pursuit of happiness is our raison d'être, and that helping others makes us happy. In effect, we can be optimally fulfilled only by incoporating a good dose of selflessness in our lives. Presumably the exact size and frequency of the dose depends on the individual.
These things make me wonder if when talking about taxation and political issues such as negative gearing and imputation credit refunds, whether people focus only on the proximate fact of the government taking their money instead of the good that is subsequently done with it, and therefore never feel the reward from helping others. Perhaps they would feel happier if there was a way to be more directly involved so they really feel like they are handing over cash directly for worthwhile things.