Anarcho-Capitalism is the only just society
Debate Rounds (4)
Anarcho-capitalism -- the absence of an entity with a monopoly of force over a given geographic region.
Ready? Set? Go!
"We can walk our road together
If our goals are all the same
We can run alone and free
If we pursue a different aim"
- Rush, Hemispheres
Herein lies the basis of the anarcho-capitalist philosophy: leave us the hell alone. No State nor individual has the authority to force any vision of utopia, no matter how grand, on individuals. The greatest virtue of a free society? The ability for all to create their own utopias. This is what a true utopia looks like; a society in which liberty is taken as an absolute.
Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, said it best: "[A free society] allows us, individually or with whom we please, to choose our life and to realize our ends and our conception of ourselves, insofar as we can, aided by the voluntary cooperation of other individuals possessing the same dignity. How dare any state or group of individuals do more. Or less."
"But," so a common argument against such a society goes, "what about the benefits of the State? What of the postal system, the universities, and the safety nets?" If the statist is particularly uninspired (are they ever not?), it is guaranteed that they will appeal to the existence of roads, the supposed be-all end-all justification for government.
Of course, the statist never wonders why, if people are such short-sighted, self-serving, sociopathic, greedy, and overall despicable creatures to the point where they will not band together to create things which the statist themselves admit would benefit them, placing them in complete control of society would make them sweet and caring and altruistic and pleasant, with their only aim being to be compassionate.
Even if you abstain from pointing out the obvious ridiculousness of the claims that a free market would not give rise to socially-beneficial institutions (why, exactly, can McDonald"s operate tens of thousands of restaurants, while the very thought of blacktop is supposed to paralyse all businessmen?), that those institutions would be, for some unspecified reason, not-good, and that the solution to people"s incompetence is to give them guns, statists are still trivial to deal with. Just ask them if they really want you dead - legitimately dead - and if they would be willing to pull the trigger.
A simple analysis of statist positions shows how despicable they really are. Take taxation, for instance. When the State "asks" you to give up your earnings, they aren"t making a request. They"re issuing a command. You have one viable answer. If you say "no," you are convicted of a crime and "asked" to serve a sentence. If you say "no," you are interned against your will. If you then try to liberate yourself, refusing to be caged for asserting your own independence, the State shoots you.
The gun is always aimed at you, even if you never see it used. The "ethically-conscious" statist implicitly or explicitly approves, and, oftentimes, whimpers that it should be loaded with a larger caliber bullet.
If you believe, even faintly, in the principles which affirm that people have rights, that people own themselves, that people have sovereignty over their lives, that people are ends-in-themselves, and that violence is not a valid means of organising society, you must reject all vestiges of organisational aggression (the Mob and the State equally).
Laissez-faire: the meaning of Utopia.
My opponent aptly points out the flaw in his case with the qualifier on his final paragraph:
"If you believe, even faintly, in the principles which affirm that..."
What if I don't believe in those principles? There is no objective reason for me to place absolute moral value on personal liberty. In fact, the vast majority of people weigh personal liberty against other equally subjective values, e.g. security, happiness, etc. Given this, it is very plausible that some alternative form of social organization might be justified, wherein liberty is compromised for the sake of upholding those other values.
Because Pro's case relies on the unsubstantiated assertion that personal liberty carries absolute moral value, his case fails.
Anarcho-capitalism is not necessarily the only just society. Vote Con.
Axiom: Morality determines the proper acts and aims of moral agents.
Extension: Where one cannot purposefully act (where one cannot choose one's goals and means), morality plays no role.
Definition: Saying "X should do Y" is a moral claim.
Axiom: All essential things being equal but the agent, moral judgments retain their validity.
Extension: "X should do Y" is equivalent to "X' should do Y" if X and X' are essentially indistinguishable.
Proposition: "X should give up his own freedom" is a contradixion.
Demonstration: The statement professes an acceptance of morality (it is normative), but advocates that one discard morality (for giving up one's freedom destroys moral agency).
Proposition: "X should violate Z's freedom (make Z give up his freedom)" is a contradixion.
Demonstration: If X giving up his freedom is a contradixion, it cannot be prescribed, and if Z giving up his freedom is effectively the same, morally, as X giving up his freedom, the new statement also falls.
The same applies to "X should give up freedom in favour of another value."
Q . E . D .
TrumpTriumph forfeited this round.
TrumpTriumph forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.