The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
8 Points

An AnCap system is superior to system x.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,135 times Debate No: 16486
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




Harlow y'all.
The resolution is pretty clear.
I will put up Anarcho-Capitalism [] as superior to the Political-Economic system of my opponents choice. They will reveal their choice, whatever it may be and I will begin my arguments in round two. Round five will have no additional arguments made and only final rebuttals and a conclusion.

Best of luck to my opponent, whomever it may be.


I thank my opponent for starting this debate. As most everyone here knows, I'm on the far end from Anarchy, so doing a debate on my idea preference would have so many vast differences that even with 8,000 characters and 5 rounds, we would both find ourselves greatly limited.

As such, I will tone the debate down into something a little more fine toothed. The form of government I choose is a form of Minarchy.

It is defined as operating exactly the same as Anarcho-capitalism in every way except one. There is a government that has only two functioning services, to have a military, and to collect money through taxes and other means (can include selling mercanary services) to fund that military.

Such a government can use those funds to establish a constant military, or use them to purchase contracted services (thus allowing for competetion between different defence firms).

I will go into the reasons why this is better than a traditional Anarcho-capitalistic society.

I would also like to point out that according to my opponent's source, Ancap (anarcho-capitalism) advocates as an individual society, not a world order. This means that our two systems need to be able to interact with other societies which could potentially be a wide veriety of nations, from free market allies, to military dictatorship enemies. Some rational, some irrational.

Since no value system has been given as to "superior," we will have to enterpret it as in general, of which each individual voter must use their own weighted values to make that judgement.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent has chosen a system of Minarchy where the Government exists solely to fund and manage an armed force. Since a Libertarian society (which both our choices are) is by definition one of strong property-rights, I hope my opponent can agree the only purpose this armed force would serve would be to deter foreign invasion and protect national security, since that is the line of argument I am going to take.

In brief, it is a debate between a private armed firms and a state-funded and controlled army.

Many thanks and the best of luck to my opponent, OreEle.

Free Market for the win
The problem with a State Armed Force is the same as all problems we find with state-controlled assets; because the taxes are taken without choice, regardless of whether someone is happy with the services provided, there is no correlation between output and customer satisfaction.
As with any monopoly, there is no fear of consequence. The Government wouldn’t have to pay out any damage caused by either foreign or local forces, insurance companies would. The only natural extension of privatisation is a private defence force, payed for by insurance companies.

Why would they pay?
It is clearly in the best interest of insurance companies to deter foreign invasion/attack as much as possible. The potential life and property insurance payout for such an attack could cost billions of dollars. To pre-emptively prevent such attacks, the private defence firm market is born.

Private defence; more efficient, more accountable
In a Free Market, it is a given that strategic and technological advances are implemented as quickly as possible as various defence firms compete to satisfy the market, just as with any kind of business. Over time, only the best firms survive as inefficient ones go out of business.
Furthermore, any defence firms caught taking advantage of the war-time situation will quickly be held accountable for their actions. Unlike a state defence force, a private firm can be taken to court and made to pay out damages.

I am starting my arguments fairly vaguely. This is completely intentional, as this debate is likely to produce lengthy rebuttals. For this reason, I have only very briefly outlined some of the core advantages of my proposed system.
I will expand upon my points depending on how my opponent responds to them.


Opening -
Yes, the sole purpose is for the protection (meaning defensive) of the society from foriegn threats. The routes that it takes to obtain that goal, however, are free to change, pending what is determined most efficient.

I will go ahead and refute my opponent's arguments before presenting my own (though the may be tied together).

A1 - "Free market for the win."
R1 - My opponent states, "there is no correlation between output and customer satisfaction." However, this is begging the question. There is still a correlation between output and CS. After all, the people running the military, are still employees, and if they are not doing an adequate job, can be replaced. And as seeing as these individuals would likely be hired from private security companies (there would be a large number of private security companies since domestic issues would still be handled privately), there would be a lot of potential replacements just waiting to take the job (meaning replacing an individual that does not manage the resources sufficiently would be all too easy).

A2 - "Why would they pay?"
R2 - To this I say "Why would they cover?" It is well known that private insurance companies do not cover everything by default. If the risk of a foriegn invasion is high, insurance companies may drop that feature (and no longer offer it), as to take them off the hook. This ties into the "Free Rider issue" which will come up in my arguments.

A3 - "Private defence; more efficient, more accountable"
R3.1 - My opponent states, "In a Free Market, it is a given that strategic and technological advances are implemented as quickly as possible as various defence firms compete to satisfy the market, just as with any kind of business." However, this is again, begging the question. Technological advances are NOT implemented as quickly as possible, they are implemented when it is more cost effective for them to be implemented. This actually means that they are held off for as long as possible. Because when you bring out the next generation of technology, not only are your competeing with other companies, you are competing against your past products. If your current products continue to sell well and make you money, there is no reason to bring out the next generation. This can be seen easily with smart phone companies and computer companies. Particularly Apple. They have the technology to make the iphone much better than it is (as well as the ipod, ipad, and imac). However, they choose not to, because the current items continue to sell well, and to release their most advanced marterial is only going to cut into the profits of those past generations, and require them to spend more money on R&D (since they just played their entire hand).

Free market competition means you only need to do well enough to win, not to do your best.

R3.2 - Lastly, my opponent states, "Unlike a state defence force, a private firm can be taken to court and made to pay out damages." I have to ask why not? Of course a state defence force can be taken to court and pay out damages. Ours currently does, so there is no reason why this hypothetical one cannot.

Now I will move on to my arguments.

Free Rider Problem.
National defense from a foriegn invader is not an individual issue. It is something that effects everyone, or no one. A nation does not invade and only attack some homes, and only concur some random patches of land. They taken entire sections, or the entire nation. If we are all paying into an insurance company, and they are providing our protection, what is my reason to also get that coverage? If I drop my coverage (which would only be a drop in the bucket to the insurance company), but everyone else continues to pay, I still get the protection (because an invading army is not going to single out my personal house and leave everyone else's alone), so there is absolutely no reason for me to pay.

Now, we can take this to the other side. If no one (or almost no one) pays, why should I pay? My premiums alone are not going to provide the protection I need to fend off a foriegn army, and a foriegn army is not going to respect the fact that I am paying. Therefore, whether everyone else pays or not, it is wisest for me to not pay. Once enough people realize this, the entire national defense falls under the free market.

Power in numbers
A single, large military is more powerful than multiple small militaries. Even if the budgets are allowed to equal out. If you have 1 military that has a $50 billion a year budget, or 50 militaries that have a $1 billion a year budget. The single military will be able to provide better defence. And in years of peace, can devote larger sums of money to R&D for better equipment, to thus lower costs further (once the needed level of protection is obtained, efforts to maintain that level for lower costs would be attempted).

Since character count is only going to grow, I will end this here and allow my opponent to make his case.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 2


I must apologise to my opponent for even initiating this debate. I was ill-prepared and I have wasted his time.
I concede the remaining rounds and full points to him.



I look forward to my opponent reading up and learning more about Ancap societies, as well as other political and economic ideas so that we can have more debates in the future.
Debate Round No. 3


passing to end.
Debate Round No. 4


OreEle, could you please leave the last round to a forfeit? This debate shouldn't show up on the main wall. I'm sure we can find a bunch of people to vote for you.


Ore_Ele forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 7 years ago
not a problem.
Posted by tvellalott 7 years ago
I'm about 70% done. I'll put finishing touches on when I get home. ^_-
Posted by tvellalott 7 years ago
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 7 years ago
i read this a pictured you with a red neck voice.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Phoenix_Reaper 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear
Vote Placed by annhasle 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.