I was about to ask the same question as Loudmouth, Peter. This voluntary society you suggest is pretty much the same as I would want.

It is also clear that the state for the most part does not, and has not represented the greater good. I'm hoping that sooner or later the penny will drop. Mankind will come to the realisation under his own steam, that is there is a greater good.

Idea's as you say PH are the only way forward. Can freedom co-exist without anarchy ?.
Possibly, if most of us agree that it should.

Is it inevitable that the reason the state does not act for the greater good, because in our society, vested interests control decision making and not the state ?.

Is the reason we hold the burning match so close to the fuse, because the state and commerce and industry in our democracy are in cahoots with one another ?.

This is closer to the truth than purely holding the state responsible and portraying capitalism and its captains as blameless Peter.

Instead of disagreeing about whose culpable, I would be very interested to hear your idea's re solving this perplexing problem before we arrive at the end game, or the judgement day if your religious.

some good points all round
but little about alternatives
so lets expoliate a bit on what might work better

for mine i would eliminate big fish all together
divide the electorate cake ..into many small semi autonimous fiefdoms

ie make away with states as such and councils etc
and self-rule ..via school districts..run as cooperatives

so instead of 7 states and hundreds of councils

we have thousands of school councils ...that form arround things like shared waterways and specialised industry and supportive educational centers..each maintaining govt services..that all centralise arround schools

anyhthing the people want ..gets got via a school
need a licence or a pasport or a bed or just a meal
go to the school

want to do business..or build sometrghing..
the students accept and test the application guided by advisers they pick and pay

want a loan..the school issues its credit
everything but everything govt /business related is done via the school...[everyday decisions are approved or tested at the school]

old people get housed at schools
the sick get nursed at schools

schools even pick the member ..who represents them
for each specific higher issue ..and will allways be the local expert holding the funds that fund any national project..

anyhow go pick it to pieces..it will work
each school even has its own local currency
is paid for by half a percent transaction tax..[all other taxes are abolished]..the assets in the school[electoral ]district balance with the funds available

school also insures assets locally
[and surrounding school districts share the burden
everything is contracted out..on small scale with payment asured and automaticly audeted..[by kids overseing accountants]

the current problem is all the money /power goes to the big fish
its time we let the small fry have a go..!

One under god,

If your desired position is B, and the current position is A, then the problem is how to get from A to B :)

Would you want to put your plan to a vote ?

And an an old Marxist, I still take note of the importance of the economy, how it is organised, how work is organised and how product is distributed. You might need to build that into your model.

Joe

Well I’m glad we’re agreed on the desirability of a voluntary society. This means that any use of aggression, other than to defend against aggression, is illegitimate.

But you must actually believe and accept it.

'Fighting for peace is like fu*cking for virginity’. Supporting the forced expropriation of the owners of private property to fund political redistributions, is inconsistent with voluntary society.

Your mission – should you choose to accept it – is to reconcile your agreement with voluntary society with your disagreement with private ownership of the means of production.

Certainly the results of attempts to implement socialism are negatively inspiring.

Socialists’ intellectual contribution to the problem has been fourfold.

1.
To believe that just because they intend well, therefore they are doing good.

2.
To believe that socialism is good in theory it’s just that there are problems with implementing it in practice.

This is incorrect. The whole purpose of theory is to explain and predict reality, so the fact that socialism keeps not working in practice, is proof that it’s not good in theory. It’s the other way around: socialism is bad in theory and that’s why it doesn’t work in practice.

For example, labour is a means of production. How could socialism – the public ownership of the means of production - have any other result than to give ownership of people to the state?

3.
We need to understand that the problems that resulted from attempts to implement socialism - USSR, N.Korea etc., did not happen *despite* the public ownership of the means of production, but *because of* it. They didn't happen because socialism *didn't* work, but because it *did*.

Such problems *MUST NECESSARILY* follow from attempting to replace capitalism with socialism.

4.
In the west also, socialists have looked at problems caused by socialism, and wrongly attributed them to something else. Most of what socialists blame on “capitalism”, is
a) logically or factually wrong because it's based on socialist economic theory, or
b) caused by *government* - pursuing policies legitimised by socialism - eg forced redistributions to political favourites -> corporate handouts.

Peter,

Yes, I'm inclined to agree with the definition of socialism, as it has been applied, as the longest and most painful way to go from early capitalism to early capitalism.

I'm not even so sure any more about the need for public ownership of all means of production (let alone the public ownership of housing), or the abolition of profits: as long as there is a self-selected group which can accrue all power, and all control over public assets, to itself, then how is public ownership any improvement ?

The problem for socialism is to improve on democracy politically, and on capitalism economically - to build on these, not necessarily to tear them down and put something entirely different - and unseen - in their place.

Joe

Loudmouth- my version, which I am sure corresponds to most people's definition:
A system of democracy where:
-Citizens have the ability to initiate binding referendums via collecting signatures in a petition (like the Swiss do)
-Requirement that certain political changes that greatly affect the public interest and cannot be assumed to lie in the mandate of representatives alone, such as the country joining in a war or signing up the nation to international treaties, must pass a referendum majority (again, like the Swiss- hence why they always remain neutral).

As it stands, Australia has neither, with exception to changing the constitution. As referndums can only be initiated by a parliamentary majority, while voters themselves lack many democratic rights and powers the average Swiss citizen enjoys, we are therefore less democratic.

Hence, more direct accountability = more direct democracy.