My problem when a libertarian debates a socialist is that I believe both of them. Peter Hume couldn't possibly be more cynical about the politicians than I am, but he refuses to address the failings of his own proposed alternative.

A libertarian alternative might work reasonably well in a country where there is still a frontier and people are too few to do serious damage to the environment. People who are unhappy with the way things are going are free to go over the mountain and set up for themselves. (This is why slavery hung on in the New World long after it was abolished in Europe.) But what happens when all of the resources already belong to someone, and the police and army are there to protect his property rights?

Free markets are very good at giving people what they want if they can pay, and what the rich and powerful want is to be more rich and powerful. The owner doesn't need to exert control through the government: the threat of denying people land, water, or food is sufficient, and no one can stop him if he degrades "his" property, by practising forms of agriculture that amount to mining the soil, for example. This is a recipe for a very nasty feudal system.

Peter Hume has repeatedly refused to address this issue. King Hazza's ideas about citizen initiated referenda, on the other hand, would give ordinary people some check on the excesses of both government and the rich.

“I'm not so much hoping for more Gov't Peter, but better Govt.”

Good luck with that, thinker2.

The problem is, there is nothing about the nature of government in the first place, that would give any reason to justify any of the hopes you entertain for it, because you would still need to affirm the proposition that *initiating aggression of itself* will necessarily make for a better society without regard to morality or practicality. Clearly it won’t, and that is before we dispose of the alleged problems of a voluntary society.

The problem is not that the current system is not representative enough, because even if the people’s will were *perfectly* represented, there is intrinsically no reason to think a monopoly of initiating aggression, and legalised theft and fraud, are going to make for a better society.

Thus even perfectly “democratic” – (one vote one value) – input would not be enough. It would need to be constrained by morality which government is intrinsically incapable of providing, because government instrinsically infringes such morality by its very existence.

Yes people want a better life for themselves and their posterity. And yes some coercion is necessary – but only to stop others initiating aggression, not as a general principle of social co-ordination.

Therefore, there is no basis for assuming that government brings any sort of legitimate “balance”, and therefore you have not shown reason against a voluntary society and in favour of coerced society.

Divergence I have never refused to address the issue of the downsides of a free society once let alone repeatedly. But I can’t be boxing with shadows.

People *assume* that a voluntary society would be dreadful and chaotic. But
a) after a minimum of ten years compulsory indoctrination by the state about how selfless and indispensable government is, and
b) drawing all their ideas of the evils of unregulated capitalism from socialist theory and examples under interventionist governments
c) without having given five minutes thought in their whole lives to such issues as how a free society might work
what else would we expect?

For example, feudal society was very highly regulated – by the state. Competition from more efficient businesses was outlawed. People were not free to contract to sell their labour to the highest bidder. The money supply was regulated. Credit was outlawed: etc. etc. etc.

It is a complete furphy to think that the state preserves us from, and a voluntary society threatens us with this state of affairs. The reverse is true.

So you need to do much more to establish that a voluntary society would be dreadful, than merely to say the word “feudal” and expect that to be all the proof you could require.

Similarly, virtually all criticisms of capitalism depend on the idea that employment is instrinsically exploitative, rather than mutually beneficial. This Marxist argument depends on the labour theory of value, which was disproved in the 1890s. The criticisms of capitalism have to actually deal with the real issues, not straw men.

Similarly, thinker2 says that unregulated business would result in a situation like Soviet Russia – the very opposite of a situation of unregulated business! He gives no reason for thinking environmental disaster would actually follow, that does not rely on situations like the aquifers, in which *government* holds the polluted resources in common, surprise surprise.

It is common ground that government leaves a lot to be desired, and we are all sceptical of the chronic corruption, fraud, and incompetence of the political process. But you can’t bring yourself to embrace the idea of freedom, and thus keep falling back into the arms of the state.

I would gladly show the errors of your criticisms of a voluntary society, but first you need come out into the open and actually state them, not just assume them.

Go ahead – prove the exploitativeness and unsustainability of capitalism.

You need to make sure you distinguish problems intrinsic in the nature of private property and voluntary relations, and not simply use “capitalism” as a term of abuse for anything that you don’t like involving business regardless whether or not the behaviour in question is enabled by government.

Back to the Middle East, and the issue as between democracy and freedom, here's a good article right on point: choose freedom, not democracy:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11tyner6.1.1.html

I too believe in civil liberty Peter Hume. The concept of voluntary society is of great interest to me. Human progress is probably historically dependent upon a lack of regulation, there is no doubt in my mind that human creativity is a product of civil liberty not regulation.

But in the modern world that Divergence refers too, I too fear for whats left of the environment Peter, and can't think of a solution other than some sort of peoples input through the Democratic process. Big Business, lack a track record in the area of the environment. There is evidence of that Peter, and I wouldn't know where to start, there is so much of it.

I havent given up on thinking about the possibilities of all, or nearly all people, having a set of basic understandings,(inc Big Business) to which we all live by. It's not a socialist dream Divergence that I would desire, but a social understanding that we all share about what is acceptable and what isn't. It's sort of religious, but without a figurehead, just us and the planet. A belief in the human species in isolation if you like, finally getting it.

I too Peter share your view (if I am interpreting your view correctly), that the human history's most un-creative years have been when Gov't control has been the most influential. E.G WW2 etc. Is there a solution ?, if so what is it ?.

I'm really interested to read your view on this PH.

thinker 2 is right about the environmental issues, and there are other forms of market failure.

I wasn't using "feudal" in the literal sense, just referring to a society where a tiny fraction of the population have almost all the wealth. Even if people start out equal, there will always be some who are more talented, have more business acumen, or are just greedier and more ruthless than the average. Given reasonable luck, such people will a acquire a greater share of the wealth. Once this happens, it becomes easier for them to acquire even more wealth, because they can afford to invest more of their income, can diversify their holdings, and won't be bankrupted by a run of bad luck, such as a serious illness in the family. Eventially, nearly all the resources wind up in very few hands. If someone can deny you shelter, or cut off your food or water, it doesn't matter what the government does. You are just as unfree as you would be in Kim Jong Il's North Korea.

Peter Hume needs to deal with these issues if he wants to be taken seriously.