The Instigator
SebUK
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jifpop09
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Anarcho-Capitalism can work

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: 2/22/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 413 times Debate No: 46482
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

SebUK

Pro

Round 1 is for acceptance only and strictly no rebuttal in round 2 , I will be arguing that Anarchy could work .
Jifpop09

Con

I will argue that the citizen needs the government to survive. I will base my reasoning on several key elements on several things...

A. The need for authority.

B. The need for regulation.

C. The need for organization.

The definitions we will use will come from google...

"a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority." (Anarchy)

"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." (Capitalism)

Debate Round No. 1
SebUK

Pro

What do we think of when we think of the word anarchy? fear , terror , chaos? but why is this ? most people are not educated about what anarchy really is and how it would work most people do not belive that we can exist without a government they think the idea is absurd. Many people also belive that a society without a government would fall into haos because there would be no law and no order but is that really true? if we look at what Anarcho-Capitalists want it's complete different from what other people think they want , An Anarchist society would be based on the non-agression principle 'The non-aggression principle (NAP)"also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle (ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force"is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are.[1] Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual"s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.' each person would buy protection there would be many protection agencies some of which would be local and some of which would be across the country the individual person can decide which one to pay into every month and than if a crime is commited that the person is affected by he can call the protection agency and demand an investigation to occur. Another problem many people have with Anarchy is the lack of regulation or actually the lack of regulations that are forced onto the company by the government . In a free Anarchist society regulations would exist and in fact companies would pay for regulations and i'm going to explain why . One way to check if a product is safe is to make a government agency do it they will decide if to allow or forbid the sale of the product , many products are regulated like that but another good approach is too let competing private firms asses the product and give a rating customers than can decide to buy or not to buy a product based on its rating , a private company would hire a certification firm so that they can evaluate their product and if their product gets a good rating or passes than the certifirers logo is added to it . Manufuctures would pay such a firm because it increases sales customers who see the logo see that the product has been through safety tests so as a result they are more likely to buy the product the shop owner also would not allow products that don't have a high rating or are dangerous to be sold in his/her shop because if they did they could loose costumers so they would pay extra to stock certified products . Competing firms work good because their goal is to be cautious but also fast , a certifier who turns out to have certified a dangerous product looses their reputation therefore increasing the chance of the manufucturer to hire a different certifier on the other hand a certifier that takes too long will also loose customers . Now compare this to a government agency that if allowed a dangerous product on the market would suffer huge consequences for the officials running it therefore such a government agency has a goal to be over cautious they are take very long and take too many tests that can be expensive they do delay products from arriving to the market if such a product is a life saving drug people die that could have been saved .
Jifpop09

Con

Jifpop09 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
SebUK

Pro

I extend my arguments and urge everyone to vote pro
Jifpop09

Con

'The non-aggression principle (NAP)"also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle (ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force"is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate

How would we get a nation to accept a moral principle? Can we trust people to be ethical?

Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual"s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.' each person would buy protection there would be many protection agencies some of which would be local and some of which would be across the country the individual person can decide which one to pay into every month

And how would you propose we get a nation to suddenly abandon government?

Would there not be people who would just as soon establish a new one?

Who would regulate the powers of these protection agencies?

Why cant government just provide protection?

How would the protection agencies know what is truly private property?

What if two people belong to the same agency? Would they pick sides? Would they run an investigation?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyways, I have not even addressed half of his arguments and I have presented a dozen questions. I will use this strategy until my opponent can give me every awnser, and fullfill the burden of proof. Which seems somewhat unlikely. Oh, and source point....

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
SebUK

Pro

'How would we get a nation to accept a moral principle? Can we trust people to be ethical? ' Old Laws in Ancient Europe like for example in Ireland and England under anglo-saxons were based on the common law or the basic law , the objective was to protect people from abuse if someone would kill someone in anarchy there would be an investigation and he would be sent to court. 'And how would you propose we get a nation to suddenly abandon government? ' That is not relevant to the debate , we are debating if the system in place would work not how we would get there i'm not proposing anything because i don't have to this is not a debate about that . 'Would there not be people who would just as soon establish a new one? ' The threat of war lords ? well he certinally would have to go through a lot of trouble since most of the population would be armed and he would have to deal with defense agencies and companies wanting to protect their interests . 'Who would regulate the powers of these protection agencies?' Give me an example man . ' Why cant government just provide protection? ' It can but once again this is not a debate about that this is a debate about anarchy but if you were to specifically ask me i reckon the police is just an army that the government uses to protect its interests and because i do not agree with paying taxes .'What if two people belong to the same agency? Would they pick sides? Would they run an investigation?' I don't get what you mean
Jifpop09

Con

Old Laws in Ancient Europe like for example in Ireland and England under anglo-saxons were based on the common law or the basic law , the objective was to protect people from abuse if someone would kill someone in anarchy there would be an investigation and he would be sent to court.

1. They had kingdoms/tribal councils, which count as government.

2. An investigation by the government.

3. The courst were owned by the government.

That is not relevant to the debate , we are debating if the system in place would work not how we would get there i'm not proposing anything because i don't have to this is not a debate about that .

1. It is relevant. For it to work, you need to convince people that they don't need government. If this were to be created, many people would just start another government to rule over everyone. For it to work, you need to make it impossible for someone to take power.

I don't get what you mean

1. Clarification: If two people belong to the same protection agency, will the agency pick sides.

ROUND 4 COUNCLUSION: STILL LOTS OF WHOLES IN PROS ARGUMENT
Debate Round No. 4
SebUK

Pro

'1. They had kingdoms/tribal councils, which count as government.' Actually if you look at the Anglo-Saxons at some points they had a private court system and also Iceland was an Anarchy for a while ' It is relevant. For it to work, you need to convince people that they don't need government. If this were to be created, many people would just start another government to rule over everyone.' Imagine we just started Anarchy and got rid of the government it REALLY is irrelevant how and when or if it will happen i am discussing if the system ALREADY in place would work , at some points maybe people would try to set up nations however this would be hard with the majority of the population armed and defense agencies . If someone want's to live in a community-like socialistic system they can do so in fact socialists and communists can get together buy themselves private territory and live like they want to there the important thing here is that they do not force their system onto anyone . ' If two people belong to the same protection agency, will the agency pick sides. ' In what case give me a scenario ? .
Jifpop09

Con

'1. They had kingdoms/tribal councils, which count as government.' Actually if you look at the Anglo-Saxons at some points they had a private court system and also Iceland was an Anarchy for a while

Iceland didn't even have 1% of the population of most modern day countries. Anarchy on a large scale would be chaotic.


Imagine we just started Anarchy and got rid of the government it REALLY is irrelevant how and when or if it will happen i am discussing if the system ALREADY in place would work

Ilogical. The whole resolution of the debate is that it can work, so you can't tell me pointing out a flaw in the system is illogical.


at some points maybe people would try to set up nations however this would be hard with the majority of the population armed and defense agencies .

It wouldn't be as hard as you think. There will always be new people to oppose the system, and they will take power unless stopped by an organized force. One neighborhood at a time.


If two people belong to the same protection agency, will the agency pick sides. ' In what case give me a scenario ? .

Pretty self explanotory. If these agencies are regional, many people will surely belong to them. Most cases they would take would be against a client. You see the problem. You can't trust a buissness to protect you. Imagine if the police had to be payed.


"Hey officer, 200$ to arrest that man."

"Hey officer, I keep up with the monthly payments, so make sure you do a good job."

Want to know what would happen if we gave money to a buissness to protect us? They would become thugs or abuse their power.

Another hole, sure! What if you can't afford your payment, do you get turned down protection. You can't tell me they would get protected anyways, because you can't insure that that all agencies would accept that. I mean it's anarchy.

Conclusion: Anarchy is a terrible idea and would lead to mass death and destruction. People need law and order to a certain extent, and all the work that would go into creating this system would be wasted.

Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
Alright, I feel bad that I forgot to say anything.
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
Its okay
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
Oh sorry. I had to forfeit 3 debates yesterday because my computer crashed. I forgot to say that on this debate.
Posted by Jifpop09 2 years ago
Jifpop09
No, it relates to a politic meaning also. Anarchy was founded on the political meaning.
Posted by Markeo1995 2 years ago
Markeo1995
The actual Google definition of the term anarchy in terms of its political meaning is "absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal." so basically the absence of authority.
Con has used the non-political ideological definition.
No votes have been placed for this debate.