Liberalism is 180 degrees opposite of what mankind has learned and taught by the greatest mentors in our history. Everything they complain about are of their own collective doing.
...It is they, that have taken this knowledge and confounded it including our relatively new found conscious awareness.
If we started right now, teaching our children correctly, truthfully and with do diligence; allowing the true nature of mankind to shine through, it would take two generations to begin fixing this problem.

It's funny, our very forefathers here in America were aware of all this and much of the American society did also.

Argument against unsustainability of resources.
Awareness is key here with free discussions but not regulations, we can solve any problem just as our ancestors did.

One should not be ruled by those that cannot rule themselves.

Argument against the misuse of liberty. Obviously if this was an accurate observation of mankind then none of us would be here to discuss this problem; it is self evident therefore that the vast majority of us are well equipped for liberty and but a few are not.

Unconstrained human nature degenerates into disorder. This is Not a description of mankind or Conscious Human Beings. It is a description of Humanoid kind or unconscious entities. These entities are the one's that seek power, revenge and debaucheries...we call it: kakistocracy. These entities are sadly, creations failed experiment or an unintended consequence.

This describes the only true division within our society.

The Nudge argument...The People are only as good or productively aware as they are allowed to be; this of course refers to education and the sharing of valuable knowledge.

The best argument 'against' a free society.
A non moral, non ethical, non-conscious, non cooperative, non thinking people must be totally ruled, by someone that understands what society lacks. However, that society would be doomed to supporting that ruler and to what end? In short, there is really no reason for a society at all under these conditions.

Argument for a free society based upon my observations in history.
Mankind, even as cavemen, had to have cooperated with others outside the family unit; otherwise, civilizations would have never developed.
Mankind, even though not self aware until about 3000 to 5000 years ago, would of had to have wanted to be good; otherwise there would be no one left to even consider creating a civilization.
Even being unaware but still wanting to be good, successful and safe somehow understood that fear of consequence, fear of the unknown and fear of the unknowable forces of nature were necessary for survival.

So, who could argue that mankind, with all we went through, becoming self aware and at each failure, learned and tried to better with each new civilization born where each civilization evolved along with our awareness should not be free to self rule, so long as no physical harms, frauds or coercion's be perpetrated.

I used to study opponent's arguments in order to counter them successfully. No need to do so now. I no longer hear well thought-out cogent liberal arguments. I only seem to come across arguments which range from stupid, to silly, to economically impossible. No need to do any homework countering those. Lately, two or three short sentences usually do the trick. Without even the need of giving you the statement, here is an example of my short sentence repost: Oh, and where's the money supposed to come from? Reply: Stumble, mumble, etc. I'm sure that there are intelligent lefties out there. I even know a few, but if they're under 50, they're usually raw meat.

The easiest way to respond is to not respond to one who is against capitalism.

True. I love the concept of the base meaning of liberal, free, but really hate the current USA definition which has corrupted it to mean more government control. Orwellian "new speak," if you ask me.

As Prof. Hicks explains it is important in order to counter them.

Their definition of freedom is freedom from the metaphysical realities of life.

According our Australian friend that depends on which country you are in. I find it hard also, however it is the more technically correct used of the word libera.

The liberal-progressive understanding of economics is more mysticism than objective. They view money as a form of magic that is subject to various incantations, charms, and wishful thinking. They do not comprehend the reality that economics follows fundamental laws just like physics and perpetual motion is impossible.

I am at a lose as to why one would want to discuss "the best argument (s) against a free society" ?

With the current use of the word "liberal," the term "liberal capitalism" is a contradiction in terms.

me too. I hope to get K to go.

I am already looking forward to next year's summit. Especially if it is that local for me again.

One of the many interesting lectures at the Summit.

Dale was up just ahead of me too.

Technocracy question at 45 in!