The Instigator
Yarely
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
InVinoVeritas
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

Anarcho-Capitalism is NOT Anarchism

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 9 votes the winner is...
InVinoVeritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/25/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,274 times Debate No: 28632
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (9)

 

Yarely

Pro

I am arguing that "Anarcho-Capitalism" is too often confused with "Anarchism."
I feel that since the philosophy of Anarchism involves being completely free from authoritative control, that government as well as Capitalism must be abolished since Capitalism is inherently authoritarian

Con will be arguing that Anarcho-Capitalism is Anarchism and explain their reasons for thinking so

The first round can be either for acceptance or if Con wants it can be for their first argument
InVinoVeritas

Con

I accept. Go ahead.

Debate Round No. 1
Yarely

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate

Anarchism-
1
:
a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2
: the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles

Anarchy- absence or denial of any authority or established order


So since Anarchism is an absence of any authority, than we have to look at all the oppressive forms of authority in society

In "Anarcho-Capitalism" the only oppressive authoritative form that is abolished, is Government.
Capitalism is inherently authoritarian

Why Capitalism?

Because Capitalism is basically as system where everyone competes for destructive power. Capitalism is a con.

Why are crimes committed? Many common crimes such as theft, rape, homicide are by products of the current system. Then the current system creates laws and punishments for those crimes not realizing that it is that very system that is causing these crimes.

Why do people steal? People steal because they need food, they need clothes, they need supplies. How come they don't have these basic things? It is because they are poor. And why are they poor? Because in order for Capitalism to work, there needs to be people on the top and people on the bottom of the pyramid. The people on the top restrict the freedom of the people feeding from the bottom by taking most the power.

They have the "freedom" to take away the freedom of others but is that is not true freedom. It is just abuse of power which bounds freedom down.

Why do people rape? It is said that men rape women for dominance over a woman. This is cause by society and standards with gender roles. This wouldn't happen in an anarchy as anarchy wouldn't have sexual standards or oppressive gender standards. This wouldn't cause the problem of rape. Of course there are exceptions such as mental illness, which is a completely different story

Why do people kill? Many reasons. They feel wronged, or they kill to steal, or they kill in order to not get caught for rape, or kill in order to gain fear etc. If people cooperated in a equal society and had none of these oppressive things happening, there wouldn't need to be a reason to commit these crimes.

"In the capitalist system the whole working class sells its labor power to the employing class. The workers build factories, make machinery and tools, and produce goods. The employers keep the factories, the machinery, tools and goods for themselves as their profit. The workers get only wages.

This arrangement is called the wage system.

Learned men have figured out that the worker receives as his wage only about one-tenthof what he produces. The other nine-tenths are divided among the landlord, the manufacturer, the railroad company, the wholesaler, the jobber, and other middlemen.

It means this:

Though the workers, as a class, have built the factories, a slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the privilege of using those factories.That's the landlord's profit

What is left then - one-tenth of the real worth of the worker's labor-is hisshare, his wage.

Can you guess now why the wise Proudhon said that the possessions of the rich are stolen property? Stolen from the producer, the worker.

The whole capitalist system rests on such robbery.

The whole system of law and government upholds and justifies this robbery.

That's the order of things called capitalism, and law and government are there to protect this order of things.

Do you wonder that the capitalist and employer, and all those who profit by this order of things, are strong for 'law and order'?

But where do you come in? What benefit have you from that kind of 'law and order'? Don't you see that this 'law and order' only robs you, fools you, and just enslaves you?

'Enslave me?' you wonder. 'Why, I am a free citizen!'

Are you free, really? Free to do what? To live as you please? To do what you please?

Let's see. How do you live? What does your freedom amount to?

You depend on your employer for your wages or your salary, don't you? And your wages determine your way of living, don't they? The conditions of your life, even what you eat and drink, where you go and with whom you associate, - all of it depends on your wages.

No, you are not a free man. You are dependent on your employer and on your wages. You are really a wage slave."


http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu......;



InVinoVeritas

Con

Anarchism is generally defined as "a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful." [1]


Proponents of "anarcho-capitalism," also known as "right anarchism," [2] want a free market with no government regulation or intervention, because they believe that a state is undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful when the option of allowing private enterprises perform the state's current functions is considered. [3]


I would argue against the opponent's notion that capitalism is "inherently authoritarian," as he puts it, but I don't have to—because it really isn't germane to the resolution. Regardless of the opponent's arguments about the actual "degree of freedom" one has as a consequence of capitalism, a core belief in anarcho-capitalism is that a stateless society ought to exist; this naturally fulfills the criteria to becoming an "anarchist" belief system.



Thank you. I'll hand it over to my opponent now.



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Yarely

Pro

Anarchism isn't just the lack of state

That is far too general of a definition.
Anarchism is a philosophy that is against all forms of authority

And Capitalism is inherently authoritarian just by the fact that Capitalism requires people on the bottom of the ladder of power to feed people on the top of the ladder of power.
This goes against everything Anarchism stands for

Anarchists are unhappy with inequality and abuse of power. "Anarcho-Capitalism" is an oxymoron since Anarchy=the removal of authority, and Capitalism=competition over authority.

Con seems to argue that since Anarchism is "generally" defined as "a political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful."
But the philosophy of Anarchy, completely contradicts the nature of Capitalism


I want Con to argue why Capitalism isn't inherently authoritarian as it definitely is relevant to the argument

Anarchism is much more than a general definition of a stateless society.

It is a philosophy that argues against authority, inequality, and positions of power, while Capitalism encourages all those factors
InVinoVeritas

Con

I've explained why the resolution is untrue through popular definitions of key terms.

I don't have anything else to add. My opponent is just altering definitions now.
Debate Round No. 3
Yarely

Pro

I'm not altering definitions, I'm just expanding the definition of Anarchy

Anarchy isn't simply just a lack of state

Anarchy is the absence or denial of any authority or established order

And my argument is that since Capitalism is inherently authoritarian, then in consequence, Capitalism would be implying the opposite of Anarchy

The reason why Capitalism is inherently authoritarian is because Capitalism is a system of competition over which business men compete over the right to authority. The right to authority to profit off from labor workers and rise on top of the ladder of power.
Capitalism is hierarchy.

Let me ask you: Are labor workers free under an Anarcho-Capitalist system?
No. And do you know why?
Because labor workers are not free from the authority of the profiteers or the bosses or the exploiters. Labor workers, or what Anarcho-syndicalists like to call "wage slaves", are not free from the authority of the business men or the corporations.

If the working class is not free, than the country is not free

Capitalism goes against everything Anarchy stands for in this respect

Anarchy implies freedom from opression, hierarchy, bosses, the state and Capitalism


To assume that Anarchy simply means lack of state, is to fail at understanding an entire concept

In fact, the authority that comes with Capitalism would become even worse when the State is abolished and can no longer stop monopolies from forming

So even though in Anarcho-Capitalism the state would be gone, the oppression from Capitalism itself would become even stronger

The fact that Con has not provided any arguments to argue against the notion that Capitalism in inherently authoritarian is significant in itself

Anarchy is freedom and Capitalism is slavery


InVinoVeritas

Con

In the United States, the term "anarchy" typically is used to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority. [1]

I used the popular definition, since the opponent didn't clarify definitions at the start.

Using popular definitions, I made my case, and it has gone unrefuted. I don't feel like playing semantics, honestly.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MarxistHypocrisy101 3 years ago
MarxistHypocrisy101
"I feel like Con didn't have any arguments to argue against the notion that Capitalism is inherently authoritarian so he just based his argument on semantics."

And that's why you lost this one as sorely and as roundly as you did.

Con formulated plenty of arguments. YOU were the one arguing in semantics; you start with an inherently flawed premise -capitalism is inherently authoritarian- and fail to so much as support your ludicrous claim. Instead, your entire argument revolves around your torturing of definitions of concepts you clearly don't understand and insisting upon your premise over and over again. Sorry, but 1 + 1 doesn't equal Blue no matter how many times you recite the claim.

You also never explain how one can have Anarchism - a lawless, government-free society- and yet also have a centralized state which intrudes upon and controls the open trade between two free individuals. If anything, it is YOUR desired system that resembles authoritarianism, and the rest comes off as projection on your part. All you manage to blurt out is the common hypocritical misconception made by socialists; that the only way to fight off phantom, nonexistent monopolies by imaginary Corporate Boogeymen is to establish an actual monopoly held by the government. THAT goes beyiond authoritarianism into straight-up Marxist totalitarianism.

Your argument, quite literally, is "Freedom is Slavery".
Posted by Yarely 4 years ago
Yarely
@ FREEDO.
Thank you for understanding!

Everyone keeps telling me that I should of clarified my definitions in the beginning but I thought it was pretty obvious about what I meant since the standard definition of Anarchism is very loose, and I thought I was making it clear that I was challenging the definition.

I feel like Con didn't have any arguments to argue against the notion that Capitalism is inherently authoritarian so he just based his argument on semantics.

And my resolution was that "Anarcho-Capitalism is not Anarchism" as opposed to "The Standard Definition of Anarchism shows that Anarcho-Capitalism is not Anarchism."

I really do want to restart this debate
Posted by FREEDO 4 years ago
FREEDO
Someone should restart this debate, present both definitions, and have a good back and forth on WHY we should favor one over the other. Otherwise, this debate is meaningless.
Posted by FREEDO 4 years ago
FREEDO
I read the debate. You can't just make a single argument based on discarding the instigator's definitions and think you've gotten anywhere.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
InVinoVeritas
FREEDO, if you read the debate, you'd understand.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
"Are the voters serious right now? You have to be kidding me."

I feel that way about every debate where the votes go against my own, lol :D
Posted by Danielle 4 years ago
Danielle
I'd like to read this debate. If I don't vote in a few days, one of the debaters should post this on my profile to remind me - thanks!
Posted by FREEDO 4 years ago
FREEDO
Are the voters serious right now? You have to be kidding me.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
BTW, what I got out of PRO's view is that she equates anarchy to communism. Just an FYI, the latter is a fiction.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
Poor debate.

1) CON's definitions were adequate, although I would have liked to see a stronger refutation of PRO's argument regarding capitalism in particular. For totally ignoring PRO's case, I will give conduct to PRO.
2) Capitalism does not necessitate the domination of the capitalist over a working class. Ideally (since these are all utopian anyway, as far as I'm concerned), the anarcho-capitalist system would consist of each and every person being a capitalist. Under such a model, PRO has no case.
3) I'm not going to award sources to CON (wikipedia?), even though his definitions were more appropriate than PRO's. This could have been wholly prevented had PRO put his definitions in round #1, instead of round #2.

Anyway, CON was more convincing.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Daktoria 4 years ago
Daktoria
YarelyInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro goes on a tangent regarding capitalism and authority. There is a confusion between supply and demand in that just because someone needs something doesn't mean another has authored that need. The argument of capitalist authoritarianism is bunk. If Pro connected capitalism to consumerism and explained how consumerism is intrinsically alienating and provocative from sensational advertising that unweaves social fabric, then, an authoritarian argument could be made, but it wasn't. In fact, Marx himself argued how commodity fetishism leads to social alienation from the relations of production.
Vote Placed by ockcatdaddy 4 years ago
ockcatdaddy
YarelyInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: it really isnt and not much valid proof
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 4 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
YarelyInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I've never seen Pro's definition before in my life, and since Pro didn't throw that definition out there in the first round, it's pretty bad conduct to whip out some nonstandard definition in Round 2 and use it as the entire base of your argument. Additionally, the first definition that Pro provided agrees completely with Con. Arguments to Con because Con's definition of anarchy seem to be more standard, according to the Oxford English Dictionary and Pro's own sources.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 4 years ago
FREEDO
YarelyInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Instigator holds the right to set definitions to reasonable extent. Con's sole argument is semantical. Con gave zero effort. Completely unconvincing.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
YarelyInVinoVeritasTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
YarelyInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't prove his case, he merely attacked capitalism. Con produced the correct definition.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
YarelyInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Ultimately, this debate rests upon the definition of anarchy. From a quick google define search, my findings coincide more with Con (http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=1&gs_ri=hp&qe=ZGVmaW5lIGFuYXI&qesig=JuLTNi2sWdeOgT92PC2ApQ&pkc=AFgZ2tnogVADBte4aCMcOuYT91aoQ9xZLDsTk37wbyx-j_qzIzh8vmJDeQLE0kE9crL6vz4BHFCl36oUCIUfMTop_e7mOcwwVw&cp=11&gs_id=16&xhr=t&q=define+anarchy&pf=p&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=define+anar&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.cGE&fp=1a7fa8edbd8430a&bpcl=40096503&biw=1261&bih=599). Therefore, since Con's definition is correct, Con gets arguments. Conduct to Con since 3/4 of Pro's arguments are a rant against how capitalism is bad, being completely irrelevant to this debate.
Vote Placed by The_Chaos_Heart 4 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart
YarelyInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: While I agree Anarcho-Capitalism is a form of Anarchism, and I disagree with Pro's statement that Anarchism is "absence from all authority", Pro clearly set up a stronger and more well-thought argument on the subject, whereas Con simply tried to use even more flawed definitions of Anarchism than Pro, and only those definitions, as their argument. I give Con sources though for reasons I hope are obvious.
Vote Placed by Topiarey 4 years ago
Topiarey
YarelyInVinoVeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is clearly challenging common definitions and the norm, Con cannot win simply by restating definitions.