The Instigator
alebovic
Pro (for)
The Contender
ImperatorCaesarAugustus
Con (against)

Anarchism is not as flawed as people claim it is.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
alebovic has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 447 times Debate No: 102284
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

alebovic

Pro

People get "anarchism" and "anarchy" confused a lot, but the fact is, they aren't mildly similar, other than they have the same Greek roots, "an", or without, and "arkhos", leader. "Without a leader". This indicated the first real problem in our society, our leaders have convinced us that without them we would go into chaos. Anarkhos-->anarchy. Regardless of whether this is right or wrong, this is a plain example of the shifting of language to reflect your ideologies, it is a form of propaganda.

Which feeds right into my next point.

Our current system of "democracy" feeds on fears, lies, and propaganda. People are misled and lied to, and the system doesn't represent the majority of people either, as they are stuck with one of two candidates who they do not want. Is it really democracy if it doesn't represent the people? Is this really the "power of the people", or the power of those who wish to rule over the people? Anarchism abolishes leaders, not rules (I will cover this later). Without leaders, there can't be propaganda, there aren't individual people who mislead the community.

People don't take anarchism seriously. They say there are no rules, and therefore the society will blow up, no leaders≠no laws≠no law enforcement≠chaos. This is factually incorrect. Anarchism doesn't have individuals leaders, but it still has law and order. Leaders who represent their own interests aren't the ones passing the laws, the people are. An anarchist society is small (by population size), and therefore uses direct democracy. There's still laws, there's still law enforcement, there's no individuals who think they know their people better than their people know themselves. And what, say, happens if everything breaks into violence? The people living in the system can vote it away, easily. (In addition, the purchase and sale of guns can be outlawed easily in an anarchist society).

Anarchism is an implementation of socialism, like communism except on the opposite end of the social spectrum. It tries to abolish classes and wealth disparities, just instead of forcing to comply, it's a system of valid democracy, a democracy actually representing its people rather than one individual who can start nuclear war with a single phone call.
ImperatorCaesarAugustus

Con

I will assume you wish to apply this to large populations as you implied you wanted the US government to be anarchist From what you have argued, you portray anarchism mainly based on a society where there are no individual leaders or even specialized leaders; every member of the community convene and make the decisions together. . That by itself is problematic as society would have to effectively stop functioning to discuss, create, debate, and vote on laws that would most likely take months to complete the full process due to almost everyone weighing in their interests. That will bring me to my first point
1. The system is unable to function and at best will be painstakingly inefficient. As I mentioned earlier, all of society would halt just to deliberate. Even if this applies to small scale communities, the lack of access to some services can be life-threatening (let's say emergency services like healthcare, law enforcement, and the fire department). Any major issues that occurs in any sphere of society like a power outage will be extremely difficult to deal with if everyone are busy deciding laws. There must be a specialized body of legislature in order to ensure that everyone else can function in society. It's like a division of tasks. You may argue that these meetings won't take too much time; however, voting on legislation takes an extraordinary amount of time. There are too many details that the entire group has to agree on. Take politics in America's two party political system. With just two parties, they delay the legislative process because of conflicting ideologies for weeks if not months. Now take this into the community perspective and imagine there are thousands of dissenting interests. Decisions on even the most minor changes to laws will be protracted because of each individual having their own ideologies, making compromise near-impossible. And that brings me to my second point
2. The people will not be able to agree on issues; thus, no laws can be created or the laws will bring no significant change to the status quo. I am going to once again state that dissenting opinions among each individual will cause multiple conflicts in the community, which might obstruct the process of debating on policy. All of the issues we have with just two parties will simply be amplified hundred-fold in anarchism. There will never be a compromise for all the standpoints of each individual citizen, and it would be difficult to even find a compromise for half of the citizens. Thus, the community will never be able to decide on a motion. Even if they do find a way to compromise for the majority of the citizens, any legislation that satisfies so many viewpoints cannot change the status quo too much. Most likely the laws will change some small details of the current system, but the big, significant changes will be too controversial and will perpetually be debated by the community.
3. There are structural flaws in anarchism whose exploitation will undermine its very principles. First of all, we still have not defined whether it has to be a consensus or not. If it is a consensus, then the government will be incapable of accomplishing anything if it has to accommodate for the interests of every single citizen. However if it's a simple majority vote, then the majority can pass legislation that will abuse the minority. They have no oversight, and the majority will not feel as much sympathy for the minority because they are voting by themselves. The masses cannot be relied upon to consider the overall picture of the community; in fact, it would be unfair for society to place upon them the burden that they have to consider all aspects of the laws they are voting on despite still needing to go to work, care for their families, and the rest of the tasks in daily life that occupy the lives of the working person. On the other hand, a leader or a group of leaders can devote all of their time to considering all the finer details of the policy and its impacts since their job and purpose in society is to solely govern. Another flaw is that people will choose unqualified people for important positions. In anarchism, the masses will vote for the best orator, so anyone with no experience but is good with words can be chosen to fill leadership positions like head of the military or research and development. This was a problem that plagued Athens in the past, and in times of need they allocated their power to an individual, e.g. Pericles. A leader, although he can also be elected because of his self-presentation, will be more suited to appointing leadership positions because the leader will choose professionals for the Cabinet. The leader will gain more access to expert advice, but it is unlikely the all or even half of the people voting will be able to receive advice from experts. Lastly, there is no oversight to this system. How do we ensure that the system will run smoothly and that everyone will either join in on the debate or that everyone will resolve their conflicts peacefully? How do we get everyone agree to joining and abiding by something like this, especially seeing that anarchism will require more work out of the people. And how will we oversee the system? Will there be enforcement? If there is, then whoever is in charge of the enforcement will gain too much power and possibly overthrow the system (noting how the Roman Republic was undid by the popularity of its generals). If there is no oversight, then anarchism cannot be carried out. One cannot expect every single person to follow the rules if there is no incentive or punishment. People won't cooperate.
To conclude, anarchism is too easy to exploit and too inefficient. People who are preoccupied by everyday life will not invest their full effort in making effective legislation, and a multitude of interests will also decrease the legislation's impact and delay it from ever being passed. The system will be easy to exploit, people will be hard-pressed to even accept so much responsibility, and it is all too easy for someone to destroy the system. A specialized leader(s) can have checks but can still act decisively. I've given the argument that the current government is superior. However just from how impractical and flawed it would be to implement this system in real life, I urge for a CON vote.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by TheUnexaminedLife 8 months ago
TheUnexaminedLife
Alternatively, what if you interpreted arkos (being without a leader) as a disassociation from your past self leading your present? The ability to do anything in the moment, unbound by any sort of obligation. If your past self is your leader, with all the obligations it holds, being without it is thoroughly destabilising and freeing.

This is how I intuitively interpret anarchism; I realise you interpret it as being without an external totem figurehead to obey, but people can be led by all different kinds of things besides politicians/gods/religious figures/businesses and so forth
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.