The Instigator
Merda
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
CiRrK
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Anarcho-Capitalism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 2 votes the winner is...
CiRrK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/11/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,157 times Debate No: 17005
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

Merda

Pro

The full resolution will be: "Anarcho-Capitalism as a social and economic form of social organization is justified, given the homesteading principle.

Definitions


Anarcho-Capitalism holds two propositions to be true.

(A)the State is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished, and (B)a free-market private property economic system is morally permissible.http://www.ozarkia.net...

Justified:To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or validhttp://www.thefreedictionary.com...

Government will be defined as a monopolist on arbitration, law and defense(and in some cases: morality, industry and property.

Homesteading principle: the concept that one can gain ownership of a natural thing that currently has no owner by using it or building something out of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Rules


(1) Forfeit will result in loss of the conduct vote.

(2) Drops will count as concessions.

(3) Definitions provided are necessarily accepted with acceptance of this challenge.

(4) No abusive or semantical arguments will be allowed.

Burden of proof

The burden of proof will be shared. Both debaters must bring arguments of their own and refute the opposing argument in order to win.

Argumentation

R1: Acceptance, definitions, rules and clarifications.

R2: Opening arguments.

R3: Furthering arguments, rebuttals.

R4: Closing arguments. No new arguments allowed.


CiRrK

Con

Sounds good to me. : ) GL to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
Merda

Pro

My argument will have two parts. First, a justification of capitalism, and then a de-construction of the concept of 'government'. These two arguments however will overlap and I will draw on some premises from my 'Capitalism argument' to apply to my 'Government argument'.

Argumentation- Capitalism

Capitalism was not officially defined so I will attempt to do it here. This definition may be brought up as a point of contention if my opponent sees problems with it. So I will define a capitalist economy as one based on the concept of private property and voluntary exchange between individuals. So to justify a system of capitalism, private property and voluntary exchange must be justified.

Premise 1: The homesteading principle implies justification of private property rights.

While the homesteading principle does not mention the idea of 'private' property specifically, it does imply that individuals are able to acquire property on their own, without regards to a government or outside body, so long as the property in question is unowned.

Premise 2: Ownership also implies the ability to use said property in any non-aggressive or sufficiently justified means.

This premise is self-evidence. It is simply definitional. If I 'own' something. I can do whatever I want with it and be justified in doing so, so long as I do not infringe on another's property rights.

Premise 3: Voluntary exchange is a means of using property that does not necessarily infringe on another's property rights.

While there could be cases of voluntary exchange infringing on property rights(two people 'voluntarily' trading another person away), the concept of voluntary exchange does not necessarily infringe on property rights. If both parties are justified in their acquisition of said property, the concept of ownership allows them to exchange these properties, so long as they both agree to the trade.

Conclusion 1: Capitalism(private property and voluntary exchange) is a justified economic system.- From P1-P3

Argumentation- Anarchism

Premise 1: Any government(minarchist, socialist, fascist) is necessarily a monopolist on arbitration and law(and in some cases morality, industry or property).- Definitional premise

Premise 2: Monopolies are unjustified.

My reasoning for this premise draws largely on my capitalism argument. Given, the homesteading principle(and it's necessary implications of private ownership and justification of voluntary exchange), monopolies cannot be justified. For there to be a monopoly on something, the monopolist must force competitors out of the market(in the government's case, it uses "law").

But to do this, one would need to infringe on another's property rights. To not allow someone to voluntary exchange goods or services(in this case arbitration), is a clear violation of their ability to exchange said services and thus an infringement on their property rights.

To use an example, let us take toilet paper. Let's say that there is a company who manufacturers toilet paper. And they believe that their toilet paper is best, so they force all other competitors(even one's that would possibly supply better toilet paper) out of the market. Would this not be a clear infringement on property rights and thus be unjustified? This situation is analogous to a government's monopoly on arbitration and law. If a government really does provide better arbitration or law over legal disputes, it should be decided via a free market where consumers can decide for themselves who provides the better service.

Conclusion 1: Government is not justified.- From P1 and P2

This is the logical conclusion of P1 and P2. G is M. M is not justified. Therefore G is not justified.

I will expound on the specific premises or conclusions that my opponent finds fault with in later rounds. But for now I will toss the debate back to my opponent.

CiRrK

Con

==His Case==

Pemise 1: Homesteading Principle

1. Merda gives no warrant or justification. He starts with the premise that homesteading gives justification. However, he doesn't tell you why the homesteading principle is justified in the first place. Unless this can be done, no links can be made to the following premises or conclusions.

2. The homesteading principle lacks specificity as a bright-line. “Labor” is a vague word. Moreover, there are many debates over exactly what entails the homesteading principle. Some argue for mixing labor and some for fencing. Unless Merda can give an exact meaning of homesteading, its useless as a premise.

Premise 2: Monopolies are unjustfied

1. No solvency and TURN. An anarcho-capitalist society can also devolve into a monopoly. Doesnt have to be the “State” per se, but it can be a private institution which dominates economically. This can be seen historically as true, before monopoly laws were put into affect.

2. The State is necessary for minimal solvency since its the only one who could enforce monopoly laws. To have an effective system checks are necessary. As such, my system, with a State, checks back any excessive expansion of power of a dominate corporation. And corporations check back the State through, e.g. lobbying and the power of capital flow.

==My Case==

Framework

1. Everything is comparative. I.e. you cant choose between systems unless there are competing systems in the first place. As such my opponent and I are not in a void or a bubble. Remember, both have reciprocal burdens. Thus, he must show 1) solvency and 2) comparative advantage. If he doesn't show either, he has not upheld his side as a valid competing system.

2. Prefer consequentialism. Ethical systems derive from human interaction and our evaluation of the world around us. Morality would be void if human interaction did not exist, because then there would be no one evaluating the situation in the first place. Thus, we can infer that ethics promote beneficial human interaction, since that is its sole purpose. Moreover, all competing ethical systems devolve into a consequential basis.

3. Presume Con. Even though we have reciprocal burdens, if there is at any point doubt over who won the round, you must default Con. This is true because debating the value of anarcho-capitalism is strictly limited to theoretical judgments and assumptions. Basically we fiat something that has yet to be fiated in reality. Therefore, prefer the status quo which can be evaluated theoretically as well as empirically.

C1: Anarcho-capitalism is theoretically problematic

A. There is no guarantee that people within this realm obey by the laws of utmost “liberty”. Since the State has final say on the law, there is a codified and objective law of the land. An anarcho society would lack this since it lacks legitimacy to act. The common anarcho response is that agencies will agree to a fundamental code of conduct, i.e. protect the natural rights, especially property. However, with no legitimate, overarching institution this claim is simply a fiated fantasy since it requires full cooperation with no guiding authority. David Friedman, the son of Milton Friedman states: “...nothing, nothing whatsoever, guarantees that the ‘resulting order’ will be liberal.” David makes a keen point - since there is no monopoly on law, we cannot assume these agencies will act to protect human rights.

B. This just leads to a complication of law. The general anarcho notion is that judges and arbiters will be the protectors of this law and/or rules of conduct. However, insofar as cooperation (at this stage of a anarcho-society) is problematic at best, the most probable outcome is a numerous amount of different legal precedents, decisions and rules over a multitudes of different jurisdictions and districts. This creates a coexistence problem. This can be empirically weighed through an analysis of international law. But expand this 10x when dealing with the formation of an anarcho system. I will isolate different problematic arguments:

(i) Person A submits and pays Court X. Person B gets injured on Person A’s property. Person B sues Person A. Person B has his own court, Court Y. Person A wants to go to Court X, Person B wants to go to Court Y. How does one reconcile this coexistence of law? This is very problematic because a set up of an anarcho system, unless an overarching monopolist system is established, coexistence will result in inefficiency.


(ii) We can see that international law today is extremely complicated and inefficient. E.g. the UN, the ICC and ICJ. All of these lack power to enforce, unless the US (the hegemonic power) decides to step in. The problem of international law will also exist in an anarcho system. Return to the scenario. Person B was traveling to a different district, where he falls on Person A’s property. Person B wants to sue Person A in Court Y, which is in his district. However Person A refuses to go to Court Y, and uses the non-aggression principle as defense against subpoena. Person B cannot do anything at this point because a court cant rule on Person’s A fault unless Person A is there, and thus forced movement cannot be done.

(iii) Lets even go further. Person A and B both have their own defense contractors. Person B pays his contractors to forcefully bring Person A to Court Y. Person A, however isnt a dumb. He pays his contractors to defend him. Result: 7 people are dead, including person A and B.

Drieu Godefridi, highlights this point: "Step out into the street, and you will need a lawyer. An anarcho-libertarian order presupposes an international private law, the complexity of which, multiplied a thousand-fold, would be humanly unmanageable.”

C. Profit Motive. Whereas the State doesnt have a profit motive, since it can gain capital through taxes, agencies within the anarcho system do. This is problematic in terms of law, because law is meant to be impartial. Courts would be heavily skewed since they would depend on private capital. Return to the scenario (before they died). Person A wants to go to Court X because he feels he will have a better chance since he pays Court X. And it is obvious to Court X that they need people like Person A to keep the court running. Thus, Court X wants to help Person A as much as possible. The same goes for Person B and Court Y. Either way its a double bind. Either the conflict is no resolved, or the decision was already predetermined due to the profit motive.

C2: Threats

A. Crime. Insofar as an anarcho system would result in a bunch of different districts, it can be easily deduced that “crime” districts would result. I.e. districts which provide safe-haven for criminals for a nice hefty fee. Even though the cost might be high, for a criminal it would be worth it. Pay X defense agency to defend Y district. Criminal A, B, C, D, E, F … go out and are thieves and hit-men. They return to the criminal district with complete protection. Impact is a double-bind. Either A) crime will continue as normal, basically unhindered or B) vengeance is taken, which will result in a civil war like scenario. This would be true because a whole bunch of defense agencies will be fighting each other.

B. External threats - the transition period. Now, say for instance the US decides to become an anarcho society. This is a great economic opportunity for China - gain land and a whole mass of new cheap labor. China preemptively strikes the US homeland. Everyone is now enslaved to the Chinese. Pro will always lack solvency in the transition period. This is true because the State would be delegitimized, obviously since an anarcho system is being created, but it will be way to early for the power of defense agencies to come into being. Cross-apply the profit motive. China could easily outpay private donations to certain defense agencies. The anarcho system would thus collapse against the power of national monopolies elsewhere.




Debate Round No. 2
Merda

Pro

Merda forfeited this round.
CiRrK

Con

Nooooo Merda. : ( Well you only lost the conduct vote, so it is still possibl to have a good debate. Extend Arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Merda

Pro

I'll be forfeiting my two current debates and will not do any serious ones for a month or so. I'm kind of under a lot of heat ATM. Sorry serk. What is this the third time?
CiRrK

Con

ok, understandable. GL with w/e u are under heat for. And yes, I think the 3rd. Extend arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
Borrowed too much drug money, can't pay it back.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Be more specific...
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
BlackVoid
He owes some money to the wrong people.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
what's heat ATM?
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
@ Cliff: oh dont worry, its gonna get worse :D

@ Cody: Yes, I do sound very policyish. Yay CX Debate
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
Cody, is your inner narrator a dragon, or is that just me?
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
Cody, is your inner narrator a dragon, or is that just me?
Posted by Cody_Franklin 5 years ago
Cody_Franklin
God, you sound like such a policy debater. Lol. It would be more enjoyable for my inner narrator to read out if it didn't sound like that.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Hedge War - already 7 dead.
Posted by CiRrK 5 years ago
CiRrK
This will be a good debate. Just dont forfeit again!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BennyW 5 years ago
BennyW
MerdaCiRrKTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
MerdaCiRrKTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: For the forfeit. Hopefully, whatever "heat" is going on with Merda will be resolved soon.