Most studies I've seen suggest that the larger the farming operation, the more efficiently it's able to use resources. Most of those were small/organic farms instead of a backyard garden, but I don't see many reasons to think it would be better.
>When properly applied, permaculture is about minimal effort.
You still put in more effort than most people. Someone working a median wage job will be able to buy more food in the time it takes you to maintain your garden. The only exception are the very poor.
>Yes, that's also the point of permaculture: diverting waste streams and closing loops.
Diverting waste is good, but when scaled up it won't be sufficient. You won't be able to get free fertilizer from people that prune trees because everyone will want it, and that's assuming a lot of this waste would still even be produced in an environmentally conscious world. You will most likely need to produce all of it on your own.
>Huh? Where are you getting the idea that permaculture encourages resource theft and tax avoidance?
To be fair, this is just from the permaculture people that I know. Many of them work very little and pay nothing in taxes, use medicare, and are still well off because a lot of their labor is untaxable. They live in suburbs and the country where stuff like roads and water are provided to them at a loss to society.