The Instigator
LostSoul88
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
John55555
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

An Anarchist Society Exist and Function

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/14/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 425 times Debate No: 78674
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

LostSoul88

Pro

As the Pro of this Debate, I will be trying to prove that an Anarchist Society can both Exist and Function. No specific structure, with short to the point responses and defenses.

I believe that one can, because it is open to many structures, and the main factor would be that the societal order would be left up to the people. An anarchist society naturally would incur a self sufficient society, because it would become a matter of survival without any overbearing government. People would work on their own and live much to their own accord, or they might even band together to create a communal structure. The doctrine is actually highly structured, but it focuses on a non-hierarchal structure rather than modern governments which are mostly hierarchies. Non-Hierarchal structures themselves are functional, they just function differently.
John55555

Con

Anarchy is a complicated idea. In an anarchic society, there is no governing force, but rather, people trusted to govern themselves. While in a perfect world, the idea is not inherently bad, human nature is not perfect. In a society of anarchy, a serial killer has just as much power as a humanitarian philanthropist. The courts of law in our society are under the government. Without the government, there would be no courts. On top of that, currency and diplomatic relations become a problem under anarchy. If there is no one official group in charge of currency, its value may fluctuate depending on where it's used or even what kind of currency it is, creating an unstable society. With diplomatic relations, purchases between two countries would be problematic because of the problems I mentioned before, and because there is no one official group to look to, foreign relations would prove to be problematic.
Debate Round No. 1
LostSoul88

Pro

Thanks for accepting my debate firstly.

In the case of justice, I would have to assume a sort of self defense of vigilante-esque type of community might develop. Without laws, there are no courts, therefore no official punishments. However, even in primitive societies, which were on occasion anarchist in nature, threats to the community can be identified and dealt with accordingly, as the community would decide or perhaps individual depending on which form of anarchy the community took form of. Currency would lend itself more towards trade, often between goods and other goods or goods to labor notes, particularly a prime property of "Mutualist" Anarchy. Or as with Anarcho-Syndicalism, currency and trade would be dealt among syndicates. Diplomatic relations would have to be dealt similarly, as in older trade it was not uncommon for straight goods to goods trading. Anarchy attains that there is no ruler or government. however it's not out of the question to say that particularly for foreign relations there cant be a representation individual. Foreign relations would not be terribly important to Individualist Anarchic societies, and could probably only work in a communal style anarchist community. The community itself would function, but perhaps either not be interested in foreign relations or could be communal about the relations.
John55555

Con

John55555 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
LostSoul88

Pro

In light of my opponent's forfeit of the last round, I suppose I should take this time to fortify my position.

Anarchist societies are for the most part based around a concept of "voluntary action". Whether that voluntary action take the form of individual pursuit, religious charity, syndicate competition, or communal sharing is left up to the form of anarchy. Anarchy in itself, though seeming blunt and unorganized at a glance, is actually a highly structured doctrine that runs its own sort of spectrum in itself. There is no government people would feel inclined to rebel against, and if you disagree with one system, then you go on about your business in another sect of anarchy.
Addressing law, I once again point out the concept that a society working as a singular system can point out a threat, and work towards absolving that threat harmoniously. If not just that, on a lower level vigilante activity (though sometimes discredited) would also be possible. In an anarchist society however, there would also be less of a motive to commit what we would usually consider criminal acts (unless its a more down to human personal matter). For example, the common thief. Rather than resorting to thievery, in the sect of anarchy known simply as communist anarchy would very happily provide them with whatever it was they so desired. Communist Anarchy centers around a united concept of in all essence "sharing". However on a more organized and societal level. Drugs? Prostitution? There would be no laws per say, but rather it would be up to the responsibility of the person whether to delve in such activities.
Anarchy actually to some proportion owes its origins to more moral and religious figures as well. In the time when anarchy was beginning to develop an actual doctrine, religious anarchy formed as a proposed way for people to loose secular ties and become closer to God. At an anarchic level, humanity is tested morally and responsibly, and in a way naturally nurtures maturity.
John55555

Con

John55555 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.