Any Voluntaryists here?

[Seeker of the Way]

I was just wondering whether there were any other Voluntaryists/ancaps/agorists on here? I am one, and thought it would be interesting to see, since we're so generally open-minded. Anyway, feel free to chime in, even if its just to ask me what the heck I'm talking about, haha!

[Jorm]

For those of us who are interested in this discussion but are largely or completely unfamiliar with the philosophy would you mind giving a bit of an explanation of what voluntaryism/agorism/etc mean and involve?

[Seeker of the Way]

Essentially, Voluntaryism is the idea that the best possible society is one where all actions are voluntary, and in which people cooperate with each other to solve problems and meet needs with an absence of coercion. Many (but not all) voluntaryists formulate this as an axiom called the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP): The initiation of the use of force is immoral. Note that this condemns such acts as rape and murder, whilst allowing for self-defense and defense of others, as it is the initiation of force that is immoral, not the use. Voluntaryism can be seen as a political philosophy, but is in reality a broad idea whose adherents attempt to universalize it, and apply it to all areas of life, notably politics, education, parenting, economics, and interpersonal relationships. Generally, this manifests as a commitment to personal liberty, non-violence, peaceful parenting, free markets (though not necessarily capitalism), and a form of individualist anarchism. This last is born from the realization that governments are based on a form of collective decision-making that requires a socially legitimized monopoly on the initiation of force to function, and are therefore immoral according to the NAP. Voluntaryists who discard the NAP generally rely on consequentialist arguments that cite government's status as a monopoly reliant on coerced revenue and currency control as proof that it is a fundamentally flawed organization as a service provider.

Agorism is the idea that the best way to supplant a government is to create alternative systems which better provide those services that the government has tasked itself with providing, so that the government in question eventually withers away due to irrelevancy and lack of patronage. Such networks then have the advantage of being proof that government service provision is inferior.

Anyway, I could go on but that's enough to start with! Sorry about the infodump of a post, but this is a topic that requires a lot of new ideas to be explained.

[Jorm]

Don't worry about the info dump Thanks, I had looked it up on wikipedia, but for one thing we all know that's not exactly the most reliable source of information and for another I still wanted to hear what it meant to you.

Before you posted this I had never heard of any of these philosophies before and I'm intrigued. It's funny, I've actually in thew past described myself as being both a socialist and an anarchist and been told that this was of course impossible, but if I'm understanding what you've said and what I've read correctly, voluntaryism, at least some schools of it aren't so far from a socialist anarchy.

In theory this idea appeals to me a lot. My main concern with philosophies that are essentially anti-government is my firm belief that a lot of the services supplied by the government are very important. I say this as someone who would not be able to make it without government assistance due to being disabled and I don't believe for a minute that if the government didn't provide that enough individual good citizens would step in and help me. Agorism though sounds like it recognizes that and rather than getting rid of services and relying on the good will of individuals proposes to find a better system for supplying those services.

[Seeker of the Way]

I fully agree with you that many of the services provided by government are very important, that is why those who think as I do cannot in good conscience leave their provision up to an organization as terminally corrupt and inefficient as most modern governments usually are. Certainly numerous people within them try to step in and help, but it's a losing battle. Part of this inefficiency is due to the fact that the unscrupulous are drawn to mechanisms of centralized power, desiring to use them as tools for their own aims, and as shields against the negative effects of their actions. But the centralization of power contains a fatal flaw known as the calculation problem. Basically, in order for any relatively small centralized governing body to make policy competently, they must have access to a wide variety of data and information which is normally spread among thousands if not millions of people. This information must be collected, analyzed, collated and presented to the body, who must then deliberate on it and give orders back. By the time this has happened, at least some relevant data will have changed, making the orders at least slightly wrong and possibly very wrong. This leads to misallocation of resources and eventually system failure, as more and more of the missteps pile up. The larger the system to be managed, the faster this happens. What I'm saying is that in trying to provide services for something as large as a country without a price mechanism or competitors to guide them, the government can't help but do its job poorly, and the more it tries to manage, the worse the problem gets. The point of Voluntaryism isn't some survivalist, isolationist credo, but the recognition that government service provision is not only poor, but fundamentally unsustainable, and that anyone who depends on it deserves better for far less money.

[Seeker of the Way]

I'm disabled, too, as it happens. Cerebral palsy. Funny.

[Vetinari]

If I lived with the US government I might perhaps wish for anarchy as well, but as I live with a very good government, which broadly serves its people very well, (Norway regularly tops those "world's happiest county" polls) I think I'll stick with it.

While I can see that there is always going to be some corruption in any large organisation, I don't believe that what you are describing can work on a large scale.

I fully agree with you that many of the services provided by government are very important, that is why those who think as I do cannot in good conscience leave their provision up to an organization as terminally corrupt and inefficient as most modern governments usually are.

Do you propose voluntary law enforcement? Corruption will occur, whatever the system because that is human nature. What is to stop some corrupt person directly seizing control of the law enforcement and using it to their own ends? And if there is no enforcement and we revert to some eye-for-an-eye existence as described here,

Note that this condemns such acts as rape and murder, whilst allowing for self-defense and defense of others, as it is the initiation of force that is immoral, not the use

then you will end up with tribalism, which is, I believe, inherently more violent and less stable than democracy. Scientific American article.

Voluntary aid for the sick and disabled? Past and present, many societies have tried and failed to provide a reliable decent level of care for the sick and disabled through voluntary donation. In my opinion, there has to be some form of organisation, and until someone proposes something that can work, I personally will stick with the democratic process, however unwieldy. If through agorism, the impossible occurs, and somethingbetter does replace government, then I will be the first to cheer, but really it sounds like these are impossible dreams for the moment.

[Seeker of the Way]

As I am a poor typist, and as I would in any case be restating the arguments of others, I feel it would be expedient to simply post some links with further arguments and information for those who are interested.

A video by Professor David D. Friedman explaining how many functions of government might be provided for in a free society:

A video explaining the logical problems inherent in the concept of democracy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgXNzK5mHdo

Two videos countering common objections to voluntaryism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPPm4885DVo and

Website links: freedomainradio.com everything-voluntary.com

[murphy dee]

This seems like a philosophy that looks excellent on paper, but add human nature and reality and it all crumbles apart.

[count tiszula]

I am reminded of Joyce Grenfell's line going something like " Whenever people explain to me about anarchism, I wonder who will look after the drains ...."

Funny how often ideologies rely on something withering away, whereas reality suggests it never happens. I believe Marx believed that the State would wither away under Marxism. Personally I am waiting for democracy to wither away, remaining only as a last resort to get rid of this legendary corrupt government....

[Seeker of the Way]

At first, it was ideas like this that kept me a minarchist (someone who believes in the smallest possible government), but then I realized that the very fact that people were asking questions like "But what about the roads/drains/courts/other traditional state function?" implied that there was enough general interest in the provision of said services that someone would provide them, if only to monetize the service. There are very few things that cannot be monetized and are still necessary. What voluntaryism allows is for a multiplicity of solutions to arise to fix the same problem, even within the same area. Even if a service or good can't be monetized, that is no argument for its provision to be monopolistic. One of the things that sold me on the philosophy was precisely that it utilized human nature rather than ignoring it. Under statism(government), if you're greedy, heartless, and/or lazy, your best bet is to find some way to either join the state, or collude with it(incorporate). Without that giant legitimized organ of force to use, even the heartless have to attempt to do something useful for other people in order to achieve more than the most basic of lifestyles. They could become thieves or con-men of course, but that's a dangerous proposition, likely to get one shot, or at least economically ostracized, should their identity ever become known. Voluntaryists do not claim that this society would be perfect or problem-free, merely that it offers people more solutions to more problems, and because of its decentralized and redundant nature, would be more resistant to corruption and large acts of evil than state-based societies. War, for example, would be impossible without a state and its corresponding tax base, not because people would be better, but because it would be impossible to fund, and impossible to find enough war goods producers willing to risk their reputation on such a risky proposition.

[Vetinari]

I only have to look at the privatised rail services, postal services, and gas and electricity provision in the UK to know that what might sound great in theory, actually in practice leads to monopolies, price fixing, fractured services and in general a worse deal all round for the general public. The government might not do a perfect job at running those things, but add in shareholders, and the public interest is suddenly nowhere in sight.

even the heartless have to attempt to do something useful for other people in order to achieve more than the most basic of lifestyles

Sorry, the heartless don't have to do something useful. Since when has (for example) contract killing been useful. And I suspect, rather safe from amateur attempts at retribution. And so wouldn't this end up with a profound "survival of the person with the biggest arsenal" tendency.

I'm really not persuaded that this idealist theory offers more solutions to more problems. Many of these theories look to me like

"We don't like government so we should do away with it."

"But government fullfills a lot of functions which keep society stable. What should we put in its place?"

" Ummmm...... no idea, but government is bad. We should do away with it."

Personally I like the idea of Communism. The reality is though that it is a wonderful theory, that falls down when the reality of human nature is taken into account. It seems to me that the society you are proposing would have the same problem. A long time ago, when the world had fewer people, there was no need for so much organisation. Back then, presumably voluntarism (or something very like it) was the order of the day. But society has evolved and in order to cope with the dense modern societies, democracy has evolved as one of the possible options, and so far, it appears to me that it is the most successful model. That doesn't mean that it is perfect but it does seem to produce relatively stable societies and I don't believe that reverting to that simpler type of organisation is possible. Remove government and other organisations would spring up. And over those organisations, you might have no control at all because they are likely to be created by those who desire power and can muster the biggest army. At least with democracy, the people do have some say. It seems to me that democracy might be improved if you could reduce the influence of money upon the outcome. Limit the spending that politicians are allowed for campaigning for a start. Try to get the people into government who deserve to be there on merit, not those who have the biggest bank balances. If the greedy had less power, then perhaps there would be less corruption. I know there would still be inequality because the richest can buy a better education, but it would be a start. Better to evolve democracy than return to tribalism.

[Smokey]

I have to agree with what others have said already- on paper it sounds wonderful. but in reality i just can't see it working, i mean what about those that generally cannot work to due physical/mental illnesses and need the state to support them both financially and with coping day to day, a lot rely on support workers, carers etc, because they may not have anyone to provide that support, the same goes for the elderly living in supported/sheltered accommodation or nursing homes, and young people in the care system, would any of these things really be in place in a voluntaryist society?

[Seeker of the Way]

I only have to look at the privatised rail services, postal services, and gas and electricity provision in the UK to know that what might sound great in theory, actually in practice leads to monopolies, price fixing, fractured services and in general a worse deal all round for the general public. The government might not do a perfect job at running those things, but add in shareholders, and the public interest is suddenly nowhere in sight.

Government is itself a territorial monopoly, which does not allow others to provide the services it does within its territory. Government control of currency valuation is the single most damaging form of price fixing imaginable, as it does not limit its inequity to particular goods. Because it is funded compulsorily, government service provision cannot have the same failsafes against poor performance and inefficiency as a market mechanic will provide for(that of loss of custom); this is, by the way, the fatal flaw of communism that you alluded to but did not state. Any state-run good or service company is, in effect, a communistic microcosm.

One other note, in case this is not clear; Corporations are legal fictions created by governments, businesses that survive by colluding with governments so as to use government force to protect themselves from competitors and other market forces, and in return financing and providing service to those political entities that grant them their favor and privileges. They would be impossible to maintain apart from the governmental structure that created them, and have no place in a truly free market or society. For more on this, I recommend "Markets not Capitalism" by Gary Chartier. It is free as an ebook.

On another note, I am quite willing to concede the idea that we will never convince a majority of a given state population to adopt a free society model. Similarly, the idea of proactively overthrowing a state is sheer lunacy, not to mention baldly immoral and against our principles. Fortunately, we don't have to do either of these things. If our economic models are right at all, the developed West is going to collapse sooner or later, as did its predecessor states before it. Most of our resources are geared toward allowing the next batch of society builders to realize that they might have an alternative to building another organizational Titanic and watching it crash into the metaphoric iceberg in another 2-5 centuries. Also, there is an attempt to create new testing grounds for socioeconomic models in The Seasteading Institute, an organization devoted to solves the financial and engineering challenges necessary to build self-sufficient habitats on the world's oceans. These cities could function as independent microsocieties, allowing ideas such as voluntaryism and many others to be empirically tested, rather than simply talked about. The challenges are admittedly vast, but the project is still the best hope of seeing a non-state society within our lifetimes.

By the way, let me know if I'm boring everyone with all this. It takes me a long time to type(this took an hour), and I don't want to put in the time if no one is interested.

[Seeker of the Way]

Sorry, the heartless don't have to do something useful. Since when has (for example) contract killing been useful. And I suspect, rather safe from amateur attempts at retribution. And so wouldn't this end up with a profound "survival of the person with the biggest arsenal" tendency.

I'm really not persuaded that this idealist theory offers more solutions to more problems. Many of these theories look to me like

"We don't like government so we should do away with it."

"But government fulfills a lot of functions which keep society stable. What should we put in its place?"

" Ummmm...... no idea, but government is bad. We should do away with it."

You make a variety of assumptions which I posit are false or unproven. First, why do you assume that the retribution would be amateur? This contract killer falls into the same risk disincentive trap I mentioned earlier with regards to thieves and con-men, only more so. He is engaging in an extremely high-risk job, with comparatively low rewards given the applicability of his skill set to other, similar but non-socially abhorrent professions like security work. Or did you assume that personal and community security had to be provided by a coercive monopoly in order to exist at all? The argument you are using is a common one among state proponents, and has the following general type:

1. Service X is necessary.

2. The government currently provides Service X.

3. Therefore, without government Service X would not be provided.

The propositions are true, but the conclusion does not logically follow. In fact, the first link I posted explained one way in which governmental functions might be provided absent a state. To the rest of your post, I ask the old question; Who watches the watchers? How do you propose to limit the state while still granting it authority? I have here a paper suggesting the idea that internally the social system of any government is itself an anarchy: http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_3.pdf Take a look.

[Vetinari]

First, why do you assume that the retribution would be amateur?

Because you said somewhere earlier that force was only allowed if it was retributive force against someone who had attacked you. I was assuming then, that you were only allowed to hit back at someone if they had directly had a go at you. If you are proposing anything else, then surely you are getting into armies without government controls in place, or vigilantism and people attacking people who did not directly attack them. The IRA springs to mind. Apparently they like to keep the peace too. If such a force exists, and there are no controls over what they do, how do you ensure that they only attack retributively?

Like you though, I do believe that it is possible that our current civilisation will collapse at some point. I suspect though that at that point, something will evolve to take its place. If you are trying to put together a model that will work better, and can pull it off, then it can do no harm. I had the idea you were proposing just doing away with government and setting off a free for all. Personally I do feel there is a lot of merit in the communist ideal. The problem is that many human beings are greedy and lazy. Similarly voluntaryism looks as if it might be wonderful on paper, and probably could work well on a small scale, but when it came to bigger societies, then the nature of man would get in the way. History suggests that power struggles of one sort or another are the norm, and unfortunately without some kind of involuntary welfare provision, I can't imagine a society where nobody would fall through the cracks.

At the moment, in Norway almost nobody can fall through the cracks. It isn't communism, because people still vote in the government they want. Most things seem to work rather well.

government service provision cannot have the same failsafes against poor performance and inefficiency as a market mechanic will provide for

I'm not convinced that market forces always work the best for the consumer at all. The health service here for example, isn't perfect. You don't get some of the very advanced treatments you might in the US or other places where private treatment is the norm. It is however, available to everyone, and unlike the US, the doctors tend to be providing the treatment that is essential, rather than pushing the option that is going to make them the most money. It is world reknowned for its restricted use of antibiotics, which may be frustrating for the individual, but which has given it the lowest rate of MRSA anywhere. That wouldn't occur where market forces were in force, but may well be better for society as a whole in the longer term.

A good honest private service provider might well provide the very best service of all, but experience tells me that many service providers are more interested in presenting a face that looks good to suck the clients or customers in, but really the bottom line is that they are not interested in those people, only in the money they can make from them and that doesn't always lead to them providing the best service. I realise the theory is that this would self correct, but I see no sign that this occurs with our current population density where there are always enough people willing to be sucked in by something that looks and sounds good.

[Seeker of the Way]

The governments of Scandinavia are, at least apparently, an example of something approaching what I would call "first best" statism. That is, the people are mostly educated, peaceful and empathetic, and there is a culturally enforced work ethic social norm that helps keep a large percentage of the population stable and productive economically. Economically, these states also benefit from relatively large north sea oil and natural gas holdings, the proceeds of which do a great deal keep their economies running despite high taxation and large government overhead. The problem is that the forces which make the system function as well as it does cannot be replicated elsewhere with other populations and territories. Like all states, they run well for a while, but will eventually run themselves into the ground, probably in much the same manner as Greece and Spain are currently doing. They collapsed first because their economies were some of the weakest among the EU member states, least able to bear all those expenses without crashing. Not to sound boring, but really this is all a problem endemic to modern western banking. It encourages inflation to pay for spending now, which is really just stealing purchasing power from the future. Eventually the devaluation outstrips the perceived value of the goods produced, and the currency crashes and take the economy with it. See Weimar Republic, '90's Zimbabwe, etc.

In regards to it not working on a large scale, it might not, in the sense you mean. Why should it have to? I have no reason not to see the modern nation-state as a dying concept, of little validity in the modern world, and I see borders as nothing more than a remnant of tribal xenophobia. A voluntaryist society would almost certainly be more decentralized than ours, consisting of a myriad of independent communities, mostly self-sufficient, trading with one another as the need and desire arose. This would be more complicated on a macro level, but would offer a slew of advantages, not least the opportunity to ensure that bad decisions on the part of a small number of people would have limited effects instead of extensive ones. Also, people with opposing views on an issue, say gun rights, would both be able to live their way, simply by banding together as property owners or homesteaders and signing a contract to the effect.

As regards private defense, remember that these are companies, who must get customers to voluntarily give them money in exchange for a service, and justify expenditures to both investors and the public. They would also face competition, that would jump on them like wolves at a scent of bad PR. Being excessively violent, extorting customers, raising massive armies, and generally acting psychopathic are all things that most people don't want to pay for, and that competitors would love to run attack ads about. Also, watchdog groups would probably exist, nonprofit foundations devoted to scrutinizing the behavior of the firms, and buying them all off would be more expensive than operating honestly. Many books and videos have been made about this subject. This is a common one:

[doggo]

Another "Nordic model" country here. And no, we don't have oil or gas. Not much natural resources really. And up here farming gives bad results too compared to warmer climates. I'm firmly a socialist. No question about that.

Wouldn't this sort of "voluntaryist" system pretty automatically lead to a system where resources are largely inherited? I've always understood that one of the main reasons to maintain a socialist system is that it balances the odds we get dealt in birth according to where we were born and to whose family. This not being only a human right issue, but an issue of channelling the resources wisely - a small country can't waste any talent, so higher education can't be a question of money etc.

I don't think there is any sort of "culturally enforced work ethic social norm", but we won't want any bloody aristocracy here. There's been enough of that in the past.

And don't we know already that when PR counts, companies hire PR consultants?

[Vetinari]

the proceeds of which do a great deal keep their economies running despite high taxation and large government overhead.

Interestingly, I have a friend who moved here from the US, and he said that although tax here is high, by the time he paid for all the insurance he needed in the US, there really wasn't much difference overall. It's easy to see that there is an economic boom here but as Pig said, the Scandinavian countries seem in general to be doing well, and only Norway is really benefitting from the oil. The Norwegian goverment uses only 4% of its oil money annually.The rest is saved and the country, unlike most others is massively in the black because they are saving it all for the future.

I do absolutely agree that the current vogue for spending money that we don't have has led to the current crisis, however I believe that particular form of economics is a relatively recent invention, and not something endemic to western society throughout the time that democracy has been in place.

It may well be that in the future, the greedy may finally have to accept that there must be a return to only spending what we have,or more specifically, not printing money that isn't backed up by something real in the vaults, but I don't see that particular problem as being inextricably linked to democratic government. It's more to do with the recent worldwide trend that seems to be telling people that greed is just fine, and a massive web of lies about how the economy can work which has been sadly accepted in most parts of the world as truth, when in fact it appears to be little more than a massive scale Ponzi scheme. To me those things seem rather heavily attached to capitalism. Iceland went that way and made a quick killing, and then was one of the first economies to collapse. I am also aware that greed always existed, but it is only recently that it has been seen in many parts of the world as morally normal and perfectly acceptable.I hope that in the future, that trend might undergo some swing back in the other direction as well.

Also, people with opposing views on an issue, say gun rights, would both be able to live their way, simply by banding together as property owners or homesteaders and signing a contract to the effect.

Here again, you have great faith in human nature that I don't have. If one society had lots of guns, and the neighbouring society did not, then all it would take is one good dictatorial leader to come along and attack the other. As I said before, your description of voluntaryism sounds like a society that would return to tribalism. I see nothing to suggest that tribalism led to generalised peace and tranquility in the past. Indeed it has been shown extensively that what makes a society less peaceful, is equlaity of income, and those societies where there is the largest gap between rich and poor have higher levels of crime and unhappiness. I can't imagine that this issue would be addressed without some form of intervention.

[Seeker of the Way]

To begin with, I would disagree with you quite strongly that the spending/currency devaluation trend is a modern phenomenon. The Golden Age of Athens was fueled on such a binge, and destroyed by it. The same happened to the Julian emperors of Rome. The wealth of Augustus and Tiberius was exhausted by Caligula and Nero. Over the length of its existence the Empire also massively reduced the amount of precious metals in its coinage, the ancient equivalent of money-printing. The idea that the state is entitled to handle money in a way that no private citizen could ever survive is far from young, although modern governments have certainly carried the concept to new heights.

Second, I never said that the no-gun group could not hire armed guards, or that they were necessarily adjacent societies, although I quite agree that the concept of leaving oneself no recourse of self-defense is very risky.

Third, the tribalism you speak of implies a group identity, and specifically a xenophobia, the the decentralized communities I am speaking of would have no reason to possess. It was these qualities(along with horrible parenting practices), not their localized scope, that caused early tribal societies to be so often violent and insular. The one condition does not imply the other. Lastly, I have no faith in human nature whatsoever. If I did, I might believe that the mass of humanity was wise and kind enough to make decisions binding on its individual members without inevitably creating war, ruin, and tyranny. It is because I see this as impossible, more than anything else, that allows me to take the stance I do.

[doggo]

Violent tribalism doesn't require xenophobia (if I am understanding correctly what you're meaning with the word) to happen. Just think about the football hooligans. Proves also that the actions of men don't simply make sense all the time.

And when talking about use of force and retaliation - what about those who can't defend themselves and have no-one else to defend them either? Are they fair game? Like, if a parent makes their child a sex slave.

I think it's pretty clear that the fear of retaliation isn't enough to keep people from committing heinous crimes anyway. One of the tasks of a democratic goverment is to try to keep people from committing them in the first place, and punishments are only a part of the process. And at the same time, I don't think the fear of the violence-monopoly of the state is the only thing that motivates people to live abiding laws. If a person feels that the state they live in is treating them well, they are likely to try to respect laws. Thus, it's also important for the state to try to run things in a way that makes as many people as possible feel that they are treated somewhat right by the society. People who feel they are unwanted, helpless and kicked in the head - even if it comes down to their own lack of participation - tend to start making trouble. Sometimes they start their own "tribes" with their own rules to keep up their self-respect - I believe this is one of the main motivators for vandalism.

It can be argued that a centralized goverment is slow to react, but people - especially when they become shareholders! - tend to be very short-sighted. The power of a society is in the long lines. Obviously, the way corporations have invaded the political realm is currently wrecking this.

It's true that the sort of horrors as happened in WWII can be only committed in a situation where some group(s) have the infrastructure to organize mass killings. However, small groups can wage wars just as well, motivated by benefiting the group. And the arguments I have sometimes read from some randroids about the development of arms being something only a state can do is ridiculous because no technologies are developed in a void. The same technology lends itself to several uses.

This "voluntarist" system sounds to me like something that would produce unbridled info wars, the rise of powerful family lines controlling resources, gang-wars, dog-eat-dog day-to-day life and no-one keeping the sickest and craziest in check.

[doggo]

Also, the modern society is a very complicated thing. Let's play a thought game:

I am Pig, 31 years old, and living in a wonderful Voluntaryist world, where I can decide everything for myself. Unlike in real life, I am a skilled professional and getting a fair pay from my neat job.

It's the last weekend of the month. I should pay some bills

• water
  
• heating
  
• rent
  
• phone, internet etc
  
• medical bills (even if this is a fantasy, I'm still crazy!)
  
• security services (possibly several different kinds)
  
• support for a library network
  
• rent for using the nearby park (even if I don't want to go there this month, if the park goes it's impossible to get it back)
  
• support for an organisation that takes care of a disvantaged group x
  
• support for an organisation that takes care of a disvantaged group y
  
• support for an organisation that takes care of a disvantaged group q
  
• animal shelter x - or animal shelter y? Which one is more in need or more deserving?? Argh can't decide!
  
• support for a media accuracy watch organisation
  
• oh yeah, transportation
  
• management of certain roads I use regularly
  
• research deparment xwtf - they aren't making money, but I feel they are doing important work
  
• ............ etc, just fill in the rest ...............
  

It's ridiculously much work, and to do informed decisions I must have detailed information on a vast scale of organisations and social/cultural/medical/whatever phenomena.

Actually, screw this. I'd rather have someone else make those decisions for me - or perhaps a group of people, and actually, it would be nice if they could be voted to office by me and the others around me - even those I disagree with, because I know that against what you might think, I am not always right. This saves me loads of time and brain-space and I can concentrate on gaining a deeper understanding of something I'm interested in, instead of trying to grasp everything superficially; or I might just spend my time drawing pornographic comics, smoking my pipe and watching creepy-crawlers on my walls.

- Sadly though, just the moment I came to that ground-breaking conclusion, the existence of me and my whole city was wiped out by the explosion of a nearby nuclear plant. Since 75% of the staff had been sacked to keep the shareholders happy, it had been very poorly managed, and no-one had been keeping watch on them. After all, they had been providing my city with energy, and "expert" reports on how well managed they were.

[Seeker of the Way]

What you have shown, my friend, is not that the system is unworkable, but rather that there is a massive market for information consolidation, service recommendation, and bill merger. You are quite right in thinking that many people would not want to go through the hassle of being smart consumers, but all that means is that someone could make a living out of doing it for them and charging a single fee for a broad package of services, probably with discounted rates. It would almost be an industry unto itself. Great idea, actually. Thanks for that. Second, I find it amusing that you chose the only method of power generation never to have been successfully run without government subsidy. Nuclear fission power is a boondoggle that has never been successfully privatized. France tried sometime in the last thirty years, and my understanding is that all the plants went bankrupt inside of 5 years. the cost to profit relationship is just too unfavorable Nuclear power would have little appeal in a free market. Also, those "happy" shareholders are about to be paupers in that case, anyway. Also, for all of those cost estimates, remember to double your income at least, due to lack of taxes, and account for the fact that in all probability you would be using a much more stable currency that doesn't continually inflate. If it did, you could just switch, the way you might a credit card currently.

[Vetinari]

What I find rather odd, Seeker of the Way, is that you seem to think that somehow, magically everything would spring up and run itself efficiently without citing any evidence whatsoever that this would be the case. I look to history and the present for evidence of the nature of mankind because as far as I am concerned, they are the only real indicators we have of what the future is likely to hold. I suspect that actually what would occur is chaos and the fracture of any large infrastructures and a shrinkage to small, less cost-efficient, and almost certainly, more primitive societies as all the evidence of history points that way. Also when I see the so called "free market economy" that is currently driving so many of the world's economic problems, I cannot understand how anyone would argue that it holds any real answers.

You described yourself somehere earlier in the thread as open minded, and yet when two separate people have come into the thread, and argued that the models in their countries are working well, instead of looking at whether some of this success could be applied to other systems, you continue to argue, without providing any rational proof, that there are no currently workable systems in the world and that we should overthrow everything that has evolved to espouse an untried, unproven theory. Nothing wrong with theories, or with trying them, but to close your mind to all other possiblities is rather the opposite of what you claim for yourself.

Nothing you have said has been remotely convincing. The theories you are proposing do not fit at all with what I see in the world at present and I cannot imagine that at any time in the near future that mankind will be capable of the kind of society you are describing without increased violence and decreased stability. Men are greedy, warlike creatures, who form societies that tend to fracture into factions. There are families that fight within themselves, there is gang warfare in the US between rival groups of drug dealers, there is fighting between protestant and catholic in Northern Ireland, there is fighting in Zimbabwe between rival tribes and families and outright war in the Middle East. Some of these are modern phenoma, some have been going on since ancient times, long before governments as we know them today existed. The idea that your society will somehow suddenly fix this problem, and xenophobia will just disappear is illogical. Where man goes, this behaviour occurs. After examining "body counts" from the past and present, social scientists have actually concluded that our societies, imperfect as they are, are actually reducing violence over time, and that taken as a whole, the world is a safer place to live in now than it has been at any period in the past.

Anyway, it has been proven that political arguments actually instead of changing anyone's mind, usually end with everyone more deeply entrenched in their own position, and so it seems to me that any further debate on this subject is, for me, pointless. Thanks anyway for the discussion.

[Seeker of the Way]

That's fair enough. Like I said, actually attempting to convince large numbers of people to adopt a free society model is pretty much a fool's errand. I didn't originally intend for this thread to become a political battleground, and I'm sorry if I have upset any of you. For anyone who's interested the links are still there. Best of luck to you all.