Anarcho-capitalism is an oxy-moron
Debate Round Forfeited
MinesomeMC has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||3 weeks ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||107 times||Debate No:||96966|
Debate Rounds (4)
To best get an idea on what anarchism is, we must first turn to the very first anarchists. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, one such anarchist thinker, defined anarchy as "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." ( What is Property p. 264)
To quote L. Susan Brown, who is a modern anarchist, "While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation." (The Politics of Individualism, p. 106)
Both of these definitions are consistent. On one hand, it is argued to be without a master or a sovereign, on the other it is said to be anti-hierarchical. Hierarchy naturally has sovereigns. Capitalism, in and of itself, is hierarchical. You have, on one end, the capitalist business owners, and on the other, the workers. One of capitalism's prime characteristics, is to have private property and private ownership of the means of production. When a few people own the means of production, this naturally puts them above us in hierarchy, as we are dependent upon them to give us a wage or a means by which we can live. The capitalist business owner controls a part of our lives, as they set the rules for the company all without consent of the workers there.
Before I get side-tracked, the fact that capitalism is hierarchical, means it is incompatible with anarchism, which seeks to end all forms of hierarchy, or as Proudhon said to have "the absence of a master, of a sovereign". Capitalist business owners are clearly our sovereigns, as they control what we buy, they control the means of production, they control how we act, etc.
In addition, capitalism cannot naturally exist without the state as an aid. because the state is the one which enforces private property rights. If you got rid of the state, there would be no one to protect your private property, and capitalism would then cease to exist as people and workers would take over the means of production and private property.
Let's say a business opens a factory right next to the community. They have legitimately bought the land and have not violated any property rights. They begin producing atomic energy and there's a 10% chance (over-dramatized of course) a reactor would explode and if it did, there would be vast property damage and lifes lost in the community. The community does not have the right to sue the company, since they haven't violated any rights before the explosion. So how would this be fixed? Would be great if you'd provide practical solutions.
Seems to be that the practical reality stands above morality in some ways? No hate please, I am just trying to learn and get familiar with the idea. Thanks :)
Anyways, this seems to be an irrelevant discussion and side tracks from the debate. Did you have something you wanted to argue for why anarcho-capitalism isn't an oxy-moron? You still have yet to address my previous argument.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
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.