Anarcho-Capitalism (Con) vs Democratic Socialism (Pro)
Debate Rounds (5)
Burden of Proof is shared in this debate, Roark555 must prove that Anarcho-Capitalism is preferable to Democratic socialism whilst I must prove the reverse.
Con may use round 1 for arguments for arguments or acceptance. If round 1 is used for arguments by Con, then he must leave round 5 blank to avoid forfeiting the debate and to keep the number of rounds fair.
Though I would appreciate if Con would go first since we can get this debate through quicker.
'Anarcho-Capitalism': A term coined by Austrian-school economist Murray Rothbard to describe a market-based society with no government. Instead of government, all goods and services would be provided by private businesses.
'Democratic-Socialism': A political ideology advocating for a democratic political system alongside a socialist economic system.
'Democracy' - a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically [though not necessarily] through elected representatives.
'Socialism' - a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community [in this case the democratic state] as a whole.
'Anarchy' - absence of government
'Capitalism' - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Let's get started.
Socialism is fairer than capitalism
Even though no region in the world practises a total free market, the wealth inequality gap is unreasonably high.
1% of the world is expected to own more than 50% of all the wealth on earth.. It seems unreasonable to think that that 1% is working so hard that they deserve so much of the world's wealth whilst the 3 billion people in poverty are all non-hard working.
The capitalist system has also put 1 billion children in poverty with 22, 000 dying each day due to their inability to survive the inherently unjust capitalist system. What did those children do to deserve this?
Keep in mind that this inequality is even though there are quite a bit of regulations on businesses and monopolies in every country, in a total free market, the situation would be far FAR worse.
The Problem of Monopoly
A monopoly is when one company owns all or nearly all of an industry. For example, McDonald's owns the entire food industry, which is a likely case in an absolute free market anarchist society due to the lack of anti monopoly regulations. Bigger businesses have a huge advantage over smaller businesses because they can sell their products for cheaper (and afford to make a temporary loss) to gain market share and thump out rival businesses. Over time this means that the Monopoly is inevitable in a free market.
Let us now examine the effects of a Monopoly by referring back to the McDonald's example. McDonald's out-competes other fast food chains and starts expanding into other food products or allying with other companies (like they did with Coca-cola). Soon enough, the anarcho capitalist world must rely on McDonald's for all food and Coke for all drinks.
What is the problem with this?
1) The elimination of competition, one of the arguments that should ironically be FOR capitalism, and restriction of freedom of choice for the consumer. In a monopoly, companies can also raise their prices because they have total control of the food market and people need to eat.
2) The McDonald's/Coca-cola companies will underpay their employees as they poor employees cannot go to the government (or rival companies) for help.
3) McDonald's and Coca-Cola will not care for the well being of consumers (even less than the pitiful amount they do now). They will also not care for the environment, as the companies do not need to uphold Corporate social responsibility as they gain money anyway.
4) The owners of the companies will make unimaginable amounts of money whilst billions of children will die due to poverty. Those billions of future scientists, doctors, teachers, briliant minds, humans.
An alternative to Anarcho-Capitalism
In democratic socialism, poverty is not a problem as the government ensures that all citizens are fed, clothed, housed to an acceptable standard and are given all their Economic human rights, which capitalist countries often neglect and the Western capitalist biased United Nations has hilariously failed to point out.
When one refers to Human rights violations, people usually think of political rights, such as freedom of the press or freedom of speech. However, what people do not usually take into consideration are the economic and social rights which are just as important as political rights.
Socialist democracies would be in essence the only nations that would follow ALL of the economic and social basic human rights:
1) The right to decent education - Ensuring that everyone without fail receives an education
2) The right to food - Ensuring the entire population is guaranteed safe and nutritious food.
3) The right to health - Ensuring everyone is able to recieve healthcare reguardless of their socio-economic class
4) The right to housing - Ensuring everyone has the freedom to safe and habitable housing conditions without fear of forced eviction (forced evictions are normal under capitalism).
5) The right to social security - Ensuring that everyone, regardless of age or ability to work, is guaranteed the means necessary to procure basic needs and services.
6) The right to work - The right to have a job and work under humane conditions.
All of these basic freedoms will certainly not be given to everyone under anarcho capitalism.
"Socialism is fairer than capitalism"
What is your definition of fair in this context? Is it fair that Lebron James is a much better basketball player than me? And who is the determiner of what is fair? You? Me? James Franco? The government? Is the fact that Lebron James a better basketball player than me enough to give me the right to break his legs so that we are on equal footing?
And you talk about how capitalism has put 1 Billion children in poverty. I'm frankly not even sure how to respond to that. Nothing has been proven better to rise people out of poverty than capitalism. Think about the industrial revolution. Never in history had there been such a dramatic size in the standard of living of human beings. It brought about the introduction of many labor saving devices, and things like factories, and cars. This was because of capitalism. And yes, by today's standards these conditions are horrendous, but understand that it was a big boost from before, when you didn't have industrialization. It's all about perspective. Another great example is Hong Kong. 60 years ago, this place was a mere fishing village with virtually no natural resources. Today, it is one of the richest, most vibrant cities in the world. The skyline is stunning. Why is this the case? Because the British left them alone for the most part, and only protected property rights. It's one of the biggest centers for trade and commerce in the world, and it's because of capitalism. But i'm interested in your attribution of 22 000 children dying and 1 Billion in poverty to capitalism. My only question is: WHAT capitalism? There's no capitalism in Somalia. There's no capitalism in north Korea, in Liberia. " What did they do to deserve this?' nothing. Are you insinuating that I feel this is just?
The problem of monopoly.
"Keep in mind that this inequality is even though there are quite a bit of regulations on businesses and monopolies in every country, in a total free market, the situation would be far FAR worse."
Incorrect. In a free market, there is no barriers to entry to any given field. There would be more competition, and therefore a true monopoly would be less likely. But I suppose this also depends on what you mean by monopoly. There is a coercive monopoly, and a voluntary monopoly. An example of a non coercive monopoly would be if say phone company x owns a bigger share of the market than phone company y. As long as there is no force involved, this is fine. All that means is that people are choosing company x over company y. That doesn't mean that phone company abc can't come in with a better business model and therefore gain more of the market than company x. As long as there are no guns in anybody's face, I see no issue, moral or economic.
However, an example of a coercive monopoly is the government itself. You don't have a choice to pay taxes, whether you voted or not. Participation is forced. The government is the only entity that can truly claim a monopoly on the provision of certain goods and services be they roads, police/law courts, healthcare in my country etc. Government is the biggest, most destructive monopoly in all of human history. So to use it to fight against monopoly is to use amputation to cure a hangnail.
"Let us now examine the effects of a Monopoly by referring back to the McDonald's example. McDonald's out-competes other fast food chains and starts expanding into other food products or allying with other companies (like they did with Coca-cola). Soon enough, the anarcho capitalist world must rely on McDonald's for all food and Coke for all drinks."
I swear i'm not being asinine when I ask this, but does that not sound even slightly ridiculous to you? First of all, it's the government that subsidizes much of the food industry, causing problems.
Secondly, you say that in an ancap society competition would be eliminated because presumably smaller companies wouldn't be able to compete etc etc. But one of the core issues here is that, in a free society nobody can force you to buy McDonalds or Coke if you don't want to. You can buy from whole foods, you can grow your own food which my aunt mostly does, you can go to the grocery store, you could go to other restaurants. There is no little spooky voice in your head compelling you to buy Mcdonalds. And if there is a spooky voice in your head telling you to buy mcdonalds, I recommend you talk to a therapist.
The way companies make money is buy producing a good or a service, and then trading said good or service with people for money. The only way a company can trade with people is if people are willing to trade with them. Again, as long as it's a voluntary transaction then I see no problem. If people really don't want to buy from mcdonalds then they wont. Some competitors will arise, or they'll find another means.
Now to your third point about the problem of monopoly, you are in part correct. People don't go into business to serve others. Steve Jobs didn't create the iPhone because he cared about you and me. He created the iPhone to make money, and to create something beautiful and put it out into the world. People go into business to improve their life, to pursue happiness. Now we can talk about the environment in the next round if you want, I feel that it's a bigger issue than I could really do justice in this round.
And about the second point you made with regards to this issue of underpaying their employees. Nobody forces the employees to work anywhere. If Target offers a higher wage than Walmart, the employee is completely free to work there instead. And if there are no other job opportunities, then he/she should be grateful to have a job period.
An alternative to Anarcho-Capitalism.
Now here you talk about how that under democratic socialism there would be no poverty, because all people would be housed, clothed, fed, given their own personal unicorn, cotton candy clouds and whatnot. ( Okay, I was being asinine that time, but I just had to, I apologize.)
Socialism is Socialism, democratic or otherwise. The soviet union was socialist. All citizens were equal. Well, all equally poor and miserable. They had equal opportunity... to go straight to the gulag. And don't tell me this isn't " real socialism."
Socialism is defined as "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods." In the USSR, the government controlled the entire means of production, the food supply, employment and everything else. As a result, millions are now dead. The idea that if we just had the smartest, best, most educated people elected to power we'd live in paradise is 100% wrong. Nobody, no matter how smart knows enough to run an economy. Humans are complicated creatures, with various different wants and needs. The notion that a few select people can figure all of this out is what caused mass starvation in the Ukraine under the Soviet Union.
Now, I know that immediately you are going to Point to various country's like Sweden, Norway, Denmark and various others. These countries are relatively socialist, and have rather large welfare states. But one of the most important thing to understand is that these are some of the most economically free countries in the world. For example, Denmark is number eleventh, actually above the united states which is twelfth. That is in spite of their terrible tax system, which is something like 68%. They have much less regulations and restrictions. Lets take another example, this time Sweden. Sweden used to be one of the largest, best, most thriving and free economies in the world. Then in the 60s, they started to develop this massive welfare state. And for a while, they were alright, because they had lots of wealth left over from the time before the socialists. But in the 90s, they were in trouble. They actually started CUTTING their welfare state.
I think that a lot of what this boils down to is what our view of rights are. In my view, a right is a right to action, not to receive something. If you say that someone has the right TO healthcare, then someone must be forced to provide it, the same goes for education, food, housing, clothing, retirement and work. I think that you have the right to pursue all of those things, as they are all important and essential to human life. But it's the right to PURSUE those things, not the right to receive them. I can trade my labor for money, or people can voluntarily decide to give me money out of charity, but I can't force them to give me their money.
To sum up, I am against the state because I think that it is both an immoral and impractical institution.
"Socialism is fairer than capitalism"
What is your definition of fair in this context? who is the determiner of what is fair?
It is for the judges, i.e. the individual people of the world to decide which system is fairer and which system is preferable to live in.
Is the fact that Lebron James a better basketball player than me enough to give me the right to break his legs so that we are on equal footing?
This is a complete strawman attempt. But if you must look at Socialism this way then socialism is forbiding the Basketball player to take steroids so that Lebron James and you are on equal footing.
BUT it is the capitalist who wishes to break the legs of the lower and middle classes (i.e. the few looting from the many) so that they may buy private jets and multiple sports cars (which they certainly do not need).
Nothing has been proven better to rise people out of poverty than capitalism. Think about the industrial revolution.
Not to say that the Industrial revolution was bad, but the primary reason why Europe advanced so much was due to their vast colonies and imperialism. For every one rich european, there were five poor africans and asians. Even within Europe, most of the wealth was concentrated into the hands of the few.
I do not know how Con thinks the lives of ordinary people during the Industrial revolution got better. If anything, the squalor of worker's houses and the inhumanely long working hours (which were as long as 16) and got only one day of rest. The employers purposely payed their employees as low as possible (10 modern day US cents an hour, or 10 $ a week).
Despite what Con says, this was not an improvement from before. Due to the terrible living standards, life expenctancy actually fell to a mere 25 years in Liverpool, England. Whilst other industrial cities are a better, the falling living standards and life expectancy is a pattern repeated in every industrial capitlist city, all the way up to 1860.
But i'm interested in your attribution of 22 000 children dying and 1 Billion in poverty to capitalism. My only question is: WHAT capitalism? There's no capitalism in Somalia. There's no capitalism in north Korea, in Liberia.
There may be no Capitalism in North Korea, but Liberia is a capitlist country, most businesses are controlled by people of Lebanese, Indian and Chinese descent. Besides, it is the capitalist countries in Europe that exploited Africa and Asia and made them into the poverty stricken areas they are now.
In a free market, there is no barriers to entry to any given field. There would be more competition, and therefore a true monopoly would be less likely.
Incorrect. In a free market, there would be no GOVERNMENT barriers to entry in any field. However, there are natural barriers present. One such barrier is when there is an extremely large company that controls almost all of the market. If a new company wants to start up, they will definately fail. Therefore, there is no competition and no incentive for the monopolizing company to improve their products.
But why such a fate to a small company? Because the larger company can lower prices and can afford to make a temporary loss for a while until the new company loses all its customers and runs out of business (the company being new, cannot afford to make lossses), then the large company will be able to make huge profits as they now control the market, monopoly.
An example of a non coercive monopoly would be if say phone company x owns a bigger share of the market than phone company y.
Over time in the total free market society, the company x will eventually run company y and any other competitors out of business and we will see the problem of monopoly.
The government is the only entity that can truly claim a monopoly on the provision of certain goods and services be they roads, police/law courts, healthcare in my country etc
The privatization of the Justice and Healthcare system is what would happen in an anarcho capitalist society (obviously) and such a situation is horrendous. This would mean that those who are born into a poor family are doomed. It is inhumane to suggest that people with more money have the right to preferential healthcare and a justice system biased towards the wealthy and powerful.
After all the judges and doctors just want money to survive the world where anything and everything requires money. The doctor and the judge do not have any legal obligation to be fair with the masses and the majority of them, if not all, would give preferential treatment to the wealthy few.
Its sickening to imagine a world where the amount of money you have determines whether or not your life is worth saving, yet that is the anarcho capitalist system. In capitalism, rich and poor is more often than not based on being born into the right family, so your life will have more worth if you are born lucky, which is already the case (without the total free market, the total free market will make the situation ten times worse).
I swear i'm not being asinine when I ask this, but does that not sound even slightly ridiculous to you?[In reference to my mcdonalds example]Secondly, you say that in an an[archo]cap[italist] society competition would be eliminated because presumably smaller companies wouldn't be able to compete etc etc.
The mcdonalds example is quite exactly what would happen in an anarcho capitalist society. Is con suggesting that monopolies are impossible? I explained in the last round and this round why monopolies are inevitable in an anarcho capitalist society. Small businesses cannot compete with big businesses without anti-monopoly regulation.
Another problem with anarcho capitalism is price fixing or collusion
"Business collusion is an agreement between businesses that fraudulently prevents other businesses from being able to compete in the open market. Price fixing violates competition law because it controls the market price or the supply and demand of a good or service."
Without competition law, anti-monopoly laws and governemnt in general, this is an inevitability in anarcho capitalism. The affects? You will get ripped off and must pay a higher amount of money for products. Keep in mind that collusion and Price fixing could occur in hospitals, schools and courts. I simply cannot stress this enough, anarcho capitalism will allow price fixing and business collusion to maintain high prices to educate children and save people's lives.
But one of the core issues here is that, in a free society nobody can force you to buy McDonalds or Coke if you don't want to.
Sure you do not have too, but if that is the only company available and there are no substitutes, you must buy from that company. This is true for all industries as well.
Some competitors will arise, or they'll find another means.
Rise of competition in a monopolistic industry is nothing short of a miracle. Also, please specify by what you mean by 'another means'
If Target offers a higher wage than Walmart, the employee is completely free to work there instead. And if there are no other job opportunities, then he/she should be grateful to have a job period.
Target cannot hire an unlimited number of people can they? Also now that Con brings this up, would it be fair that Target employees get a higher wage than Walmart for doing the exact same job? Many times, the employee is bound by contract or has no other job opportunities (under no fault of his own).
Con says that he/she should be grateful to have a job. That is easy to say, when you are not working 16 hours a day making 10 dollars a week. Not to suggest that pre 1860 working conditions will come back in a modern day anarcho capitalist society, but defintely wages will reduce and working day will be longer and harsher. Now that person can simply not work at that company, but if the person is unemployed, he cannot feed his family or provide medicine for his children when they are ill because in anarcho capitalism, survival requires money. Anything and everything requires money. So much so that Money trumps morality.
The soviet union was socialist. All citizens were equal. Well, all equally poor and miserable. They had equal opportunity... to go straight to the gulag.
The progress made by the Soviet Union is outstanding. Things were far far worse under Czar Nicholas II, the worker and the peasants were subejcted to harsh feudal like conditions and lived in conditions similar to the English lower class in Liverpool in pre 1860.
It took the Communists from 1917 to 1961 (44 years) to go from a third world country to a space faring super power being the first country in the world to send people to space.
Now I agree that, especially under Stalin, there was political repression with the gulags and lack of freedom of expression. However, this is not a factor of socialism (USSR was socialist economically but that does not mean that everything about it is socialist). No part of government ownership of means of production requires people to be sent to the gulag or to live in terrible conditions.
I could infact argue that Slavery was a product of capitalism. The drive for cheap labour and profit encouraged the rich to enslave people and treat them as property. Unlike the gulags, this IS a direct factor of capitalism and the drive for profit that is a core of capitalism.
Con is quick to denounce government intervention into the market as immoral, however it is the governments that abolished and freed millions of slaves.
And don't tell me [USSR] isn't " real socialism."...Now, I know that immediately you are going to Point to various country's like Sweden, Norway, Denmark and various others
Do not make assumptions before I make my argument.
And what is it with leftists getting hung up on the issue of whether or not a rich person needs a private jet or sports car? Even when I was on the left, I never really understood this. Do we really need most things we have today? Is reading, playing video games, sports, music, computers and cars pre requisites to human survival? No, and yet I don't hear you calling us back to the caves to wear animal skins and hunt woolly mammoths with spears. Hell, you don't NEED to eat if your goal is death. You don't need a television set, and yet if I break into your house and steal it I think you'll call the police. So the question is not about whether someone who is rich needs a new yacht or private jet. If they have the means to justly acquire such things, whether they buy it or build it themselves then it's no different than a poor/middle class person paying for their expenses.
Now in terms of the industrial evolution, initially life expectancy dropped. However, around the mid 19th century that started to reverse, and you started seeing a greater access to fuel, etc. "Liberia is a capitalist country, most businesses are controlled by people of Lebanese, Indian and Chinese descent."Liberia is most certainly not a capitalist country. It ranks 141 out of two hundred or so countries when it comes to economic freedom. It was also a country racked by civil war and destruction, much like Somalia. Not exactly a Anarcho capitalist paradise. Certainly nothing that i'm advocating for. Now talking about Asia, In india in 1990, 51% of the population lived in absolute poverty. Now it's about 22 percent. In 1981, something like 65% of the Chinese population lived on less than a dollar a day. Guess what the number was in 2007? It's hard top believe, but about 4%. What is the cause? The cause is that over the past 30 or so years, the general trend has been toward free trade policy for these countries.
When talking about monopolies, you say that "an extremely large company that controls almost all of the market. If a new company wants to start up, they will definately fail. Therefore, there is no competition and no incentive for the monopolizing company to improve their products." and this is because of predatory pricing. But people are buying from that company because they want to in the first place. If they really don't want to buy their products because they don't LIKE them, or they think the owners are scumbags or whatever, the company can either improve or go out of business because a competitor will arise with a better and more appealing way of doing things, and the company can either adapt or die.
Now maybe this was unintentional, but it seems to me that you somewhat skipped over my point about how using government to fight monopolies makes no sense, because government is in it of itself the biggest coercive monopoly in existence. Apple may have a rather large share of the tech market, but Apple doesn't have the ability to tax. It doesn't have the federal reserve. It doesn't have the military industrial complex. The difference between Apple and the state is that Apple interacts with you on a voluntary basis. The state is coercive by nature. You have the choice to buy Apple products or not. You don't have a choice with the state. If you do not consent to having your property stolen and therefore refuse to pay them tribute in the form of taxation, then men in blue costumes will come to your door and lock you in a cage. And if you resist this aggression, they may kill you. However, if I am somehow misreading this and you actually did address this, I apologize.
"The privatization of the Justice and Healthcare system is what would happen in an anarcho capitalist society (obviously) and such a situation is horrendous. This would mean that those who are born into a poor family are doomed. It is inhumane to suggest that people with more money have the right to preferential healthcare and a justice system biased towards the wealthy and powerful."
The idea that in the absence of government, the switch in people's brain that makes them care about poor will just go away seems pretty ludicrous to me. Would you stop caring about the welfare of the less fortunate? I wouldn't. There would still be charity for those unable to pay. And personally, if I was taking my business to a particular security agency, I would want it to do some pro bono. Many other professions do this.
Now you talk about how that a free market in law and law enforcement would inevitably favor the wealthy. Now an important thing to understand is that in a free market, your reputation is everything. If a judge/arbitrator had a reputation for being biased towards a certain group of people, be they white people, black people, heterosexuals or homosexuals, rich or poor, people would not want to transact with them, so I think that there would be a market for an objective decision.
"Is con suggesting that monopolies are impossible?" When I said the quote that you posted, I was simply re stating your position as I saw it. I don't know how you interpreted that to me saying monopolies are impossible.
Now with regards to collusion and price fixing, companies that collude are not forcing anybody to do anything. People can still choose to trade with them or not. This does not prevent competitors from entering the field. As long as no force is being initiated against people, then I see no problem.
"sure you do not have too, but if that is the only company available and there are no substitutes, you must buy from that company. This is true for all industries as well."
If people are sick of coke's antics, then they will either have to change their methods of doing business, or someone with a more attractive way of doing things will arise and people will go to them. And by "another means" I was simply reiterating the point that unless coke was serving the demands of it's customers, other companies will arise to meet that demand, or another tasty carbonated beverage will become preferred. I wasn't referring to one specific thing.
"would it be fair that Target employees get a higher wage than Walmart for doing the exact same job?"
Let me be clear: as long as no coercion is applied, then yes, it is "fair" ( although I hate that word) . Who are you to interfere with a voluntary contract between consenting adults?
With regards to the soviet union, it was the government's incorrect allocation of resources that caused the massive famine in the Ukraine. And you can say it was simply political repression that caused the millions of death ( many of which by starvation), but that's because they had that enormous amount of power to begin with. I don't think that you can give nearly unlimited power to a specific group of people and expect them to not abuse it.
And the idea that capitalism produces slavery is simply incorrect. In many cases it was the government that institutionalized slavery, and they caught escaped slaves in the south, returning them to their owners.Aside from the fact that it is arguably the most evil institution in history, Slavery is economically destructive, because it discourages investment in labor saving devices.
"Do not make assumptions before I make my argument."( referring to my statements about European socialism).
I'm sorry, but that's usually what people bring up when talking about socialism. It wasn't exactly a huge leap, so I figured why not bring it up preemptively.
I'm excited for round four. I kinda want to talk a little more about the specifics of how I think things handled currently by government could be better handled by the free market. I would like to get into the specifics a bit more before this debate is over.
I do not want to break the legs of the poor and middle class, I want them to be free and do well in life.
The reality of total free market capitalism will severly hinder their progress in life. Hopefully by the end of the debate, you dear reader, will see why.
"Socialism this way then socialism is forbiding the Basketball player to take steroids so that Lebron James and you are on equal footing." But the thing is me and Lebron will never be on equal footing, whether he takes steroids or not. But that gives me no claim on his abilities.
Even then, the point of Basketball, or all, sports for that matter is to compete and win. However, life is about the pursuit of hapiness and the capitalist world has unfortunately forced people to pursue material wealth and to compete for it rather than to co-operate to make the world a happier place.
The socialist world will result in the end of the need to do jobs you don't like for years just to make more money, since all people will be guaranteed a basic living as long as you contribute to society one way or another. Studies show that in the USA (a famous market economy), 70% of people hate or atleast dislike their jobs. This is a worldwide problem as well as pointed out by source .
This is evidence that people, although MAY (huge emphasis on may) get wealthier and join the upper class due to capitalism, are not guaranteed to be happier.
please explain the statement " the few looting from the many"
Take the example of the industrial revolution. Few rich factory owners prospered whereas the lower class, and colonial subjects of European empires suffered and were effectively looted of their labour (in the case of the lower class workers) and resources (in the case of colonial subjects).
Whilst this might be an outdated example, we must still learn from history and apply it to the modern day world. A scenario like that is possible and perhaps inevitable in the Anarcho Capitalist world.
So the question is not about whether someone who is rich needs a new yacht or private jet. If they have the means to justly acquire such things, whether they buy it or build it themselves then it's no different than a poor/middle class person paying for their expenses.
We do not have unlimited resources on this planet. If we are producing private jets for a poor people when those same resources (capital/money) could be used to feed the world's starving, you know there is a problem with this system.
Con brings up that people justly acquire their wealth. Did most super rich people acquire their wealth justly?
The short answer, no.
The long answer: See, if everybody got equal opportunity, then almost everybody would be rich because everyone has some talent to contribute to society. But only a very small amount of the world is wealthy. There must be something about these people that made them so wealthy. Most wealthy people are wealthy because their parents were wealthy or were born in a wealthy country (or marreid a wealthy spouse).
That's right, people are entitled to have a better life than you for being born in the right place and to the right family, or for being a gold digger! What a fair system Capitalism is! <sarcasm>
Yes, you can become wealthy in an anarcho capitalist society even if you start poor, but it is VERY HARD considering that there are already people in the top who want to keep their wealth, chances are 1 in a million even though you may deserve it more than the people who simply inherited wealth from parents (or worse, married a rich spouse).
You may love being a police officer and putting bad guys in jail, but you are not going to make much money off of that (even though you save people's lives) compared to being a Lawyer, a job you absolutely hate. Therefore you are given a choice between having a sad but wealthy life (which is worthless) and a poor but relatively happy life (better, but it is still very unfair). Seriously, the capitalist system is against humanism and individualism.
Now in terms of the industrial evolution, initially life expectancy dropped. However, around the mid 19th century that started to reverse
In the early industrial revolution (not evolution), Britain was very free market (Focus is on Britain because it was the first industrial nation). As such, rich factory owners were free to employ child labourers and work people for an inhumane number of hours (as long as 16 per day) with little pay. This and the terrible worker's housing caused the drop in life expectancy, why then did it rise?
The primary reason is the following: Market regulation (a step towards socialism, and away from free market/anarcho-capitalism).
"legislation limiting child labour in factories was introduced in 1844, 1847, 1850, 1853 and 1867. After 1867 no factory or workshop could employ any child under the age of 8, and employees aged between 8 and 13 were to receive at least 10 hours of education per week." The regulation against child labour saved the lives of many children (as you all probably know, working conditions were quite dangerous back then), therefore improving the life expectancy results after 1860.
"With the protection of the law, many [kids] could now avoid the exploitation of their childhood and gain an education."
It is rather ironic that the industrial revolution, which Con wanted to help the case of capitalism, has ended up hindering the case of anarcho-capitalism.
Liberia is most certainly not a capitalist country. It ranks 141 out of two hundred or so countrieswhen it comes to economic freedom
No country in the world is a total free market, or a total command economy (socialist central planning). Besides, economic freedom as used in the source [economic freedom index where Liberia is 141] does not correlate with extent of free market. Corruption is used as a factor when assessing economic freedom. You can have a corrupt free market and a corrupt command economy. Therefore let us not take this assessment from economic freedom index into account.
The fact that most firms in Liberia are owned by people with foreign ancestry show that the nation has private property and is not a command economy.
And the idea that capitalism produces slavery is simply incorrect. In many cases it was the government that institutionalized slavery, and they caught escaped slaves in the south, returning them to their owners
Governments can institutionalize slavery yes (European colonial empires were quite capitalist and not socialist), but you must realize that plantation owners are not government officials and many of them worked slaves to death because of the drive for profit, THE FUNDAMENTAL core of capitalism.
Only government regulation (aka abolition), brought freedom to the slaves, again this was a step away from anarcho-capitalism as there was an abolition of private ownership of means of production (in this case slave labour) by the governments of the world.
The abolition of government which is required in ANARCHO-capitalism brings with it, the abolition of laws. These laws include anti-slavery and anti-child labour laws. Therefore, a company can use slaves and child labour in the laizze faire capitalist society. Con has still not proven how anarchism is going to work.
"would it be fair that Target employees get a higher wage than Walmart for doing the exact same job?"
Let me be clear: as long as no coercion is applied, then yes, it is "fair" ( although I hate that word) . Who are you to interfere with a voluntary contract between consenting adults?
If this is considered fair in anarcho capitalism, you just lost any chance of making me an anarcho capitalist. Who are you to say that this person deserves a higher wage because he was lucky enough to get the right employer and not because of merit? Con's statement goes against the principles of meritocracy.
Now with regards to collusion and price fixing, companies that collude are not forcing anybody to do anything. People can still choose to trade with them or not.
The results of such malpractises by businesses are:
1) Undeserved and Unnecessary exploitation of the consumer
2) Anti human principles, such malpractises are likely to find their way to hospitals, schools, law enforcement, even judiciary
3) higher prices even on necessary products like food, water, clothing, medicine.
Need I say more?
Would you stop caring about the welfare of the less fortunate [in anarcho capitalism]? I wouldn't.
1) Con's arguments highly make me doubt this statement (I sincerely don't mean to make an ad hominem)
2) Con is one person who may do good things to less fortunate. Bill Gates is also only one good person, but for every one good rich person willing to help the less fortunate, there are a hundred who do not care about them. If they did care, poverty and hunger would not be a problem right now, socialism may not be required (it would still be better but not the necessity it is now).
If a judge/arbitrator had a reputation for being biased towards a certain group of people, be they white people, black people, heterosexuals or homosexuals, rich or poor, people would not want to transact with them,
What if that same judge had ties with the media (which may also fall into a monopoly market) and the media therefore, did not showcase the injustice the judge does and rather praises him. Corporations tend to expand into several companies, this is not an unlikely scenario. It is simply a case with letting a baby play with fire, too much power and trust being given to people whose primary goal is to make money. Con himself says I don't think that you can give nearly unlimited power to a specific group of people and expect them to not abuse it.
So vote pro, and hopefully we'll do this again soon. Once again, I apologize.
Darn, I was so interested in this debate. I would like to say that Con was the toughest debater I debated with on the matter of socialism vs capitalism.
Incase Con manages to have time the next few days, I would encourage him to put up a short conclusion of his main arguments. I would also put up a conclusion but that would make the number of rounds unfair.
roark555 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.