Anarcho-capitalism is the right form of government
Debate Rounds (5)
With that said, you seem to not have a complete understanding of how the government as a whole functions as you say that a 51% majority can rule the nation and then make some statement about individuals. While a marjory that slim can in theory "rule the land," it doesn't often happen in such a close margin, but alas that isn't the topic of the debate.
You're first idea that individuals and groups must pay for defense is completely unsound and proves the lack of oversight in the idea of anarcho-capitalism (I'll call it AC from here on out). Not everyone can afford a privet police for military force to protect the, are they to be left as the fodder to the evil whom our personal army keeps us safe from? What about firemen? Are they only to put out the fires and help those who pay the a mafia like protection fee? Your idea that people are charitable is true is some instances, but in essence, taxes do exactly that. They pay for a national military, local police, and the benefits of those who are less fortunate.
I also wish to retort your statement that government regulation is the reason pollution exists. I find that improbable as the government regulation wouldn't have been set into place had there been no pollution. While it's true that a privet entity may preserve the land and capital that is its own out of sake of maintaining its own production, there is not direct insinuative for it to protect the rest of the environment directly in a fiscal sense.
I agree on your point about an alliance between government and business, that is a point that I stand with you on.
The free market may work, but for it to work at its most efficient, you must deal with the cruelty of unchecked greed, a massive gap in equality, and the horrors behind a laissez faire style system to create a "capitalist utopia." Such a society wasn't created in the United States during the industry revolution, but in fact caused the counter, the Great Depression, nor has it happened in developing parts of the globe where capitalism is aloud to run wild. Parts of capitalism are okay, but the the nation needs some socialization to be functional, lest you feel that people should be void of roads and power.
The idea of a progressive payment into a centralized fund for protection is nice, but is similar to a tax, but instead of handing the money to a centralized government, the money is handed to a privet entity which isn't bound by laws. How would laws be created? How would the be enforced? Though privet enterprise. There lies the problem of justice. The punishments and trial aren't left to an un-bias public arena, but to privet enterprise. This can lead to a very corrupt society as the defense firms could make it "law" that if someone didn't want them to destroy their property because it was deemed "threatening," this could lead to people having to pay every single group simply to keep their lives and property.
While I can understand you retort about environmental preservation, if such a statement is true on a full scale, why aren't these actions taken by every company in the modern world of today? My simple explanation lies in one word: greed.
You've also failed to explain what is being used as currency, as without any form of central government, no uniform, standard currency would be issued, thus I'm left to assume that privet banks begin to issue their own notes. Such was the case before the United States began printing it's own paper money, and banks would issue bank notes form their own bank (oft backed by gold). This was fine as long as one did business with other customer of the same bank, Bank A we'll say, and everything was all fine and dandy. The issues arise when one decides to either travel or does business with someone who uses another bank, let us say, Bank B.
Bob is a customer with Bank A, he regularly does business with other people who are customers of the same bank so his bank notes are perfectly fine to use as payment. Bob sees a new sushi shop open up down the block form his house and wants to try it out, but when he goes to pay, the owner tells him that he is a customer of Bank B and not Bank A, but because the Banks are within the same town, they've worked out what the exchange rate for their notes are and everything is okayish. Bob then finds out he needs to go to a large city for work and upon arriving wants lunch. Bob goes and orders his lunch and goes to pay, but the cashier won't accept his bank notes as they have never heard of Bank A and use Bank C.
The idea of a uniform, standard currency while perhaps possible to be create using a your ideal "governing" body is improbably is the idea is that the market should decide. These market failures are perhaps the reasoning behind
Money isn't the only example of what a market could very well fail to do, there are so many more such as roads, clean water, ensuring that food and medicine are safe, people are granted safe working conditions and many more among other things. A completely free market with no centralized government regulation could, and has been disastrous for the majority of the population.
The idea that firms never owned land themselves that "measured up," and this is why some firms don't partake in protecting the environment is ludicrous. If a firm was going to take measures to protect the environment, why would government regulation on protecting the environment prevent that? In the places with the least government regulation such as Mexico and China, companies can dump whatever they please into the environment, and they often do. This shows that regulation isn't the reason behind why firms decide to pollute. I feel personally, that using the concepts of capitalism itself, with no direct incentive to contain pollution, a firm will find that it maximizes profits to just dump it into the environment. The problem isn't that regulation exists.
I'd like to address the boom and bust cycle or market volatility in itself. While not at visible in micro-economic scenarios, on a macro scale, they are almost impossible to miss. Using stocks as an example, as investors add money to a company, or market, the company or market flourishes and the "boom" is seen, but when something causes a panic, and/or mass sell off, the price of the stock falls, and the value of the market falls, thus the "bust". Such a thing happened during the 1920s that led to the depression in the 1930s. People began making money of stocks, and it came to the point where everyone wanted to get in on the stock craze and people started buying stock on margin with loaned money. Eventually, calls were placed on the loans, and people had to sell the stock they had bought on margin prematurely, as more calls on the credit were issued, more people began selling, and prices across the market began to fall sharply. These quick sells led to a crash of the entire market, a bust following the boom of the roaring 20s. This bust led to the Great Depression.
Another bust can be seen in 2008, when the entire banking industry almost collapsed and took the world economy with it. Deregulation of investment banks led to unrealistic loans being made to people who knowingly couldn't pay them back. The housing market was the best example of this, and this is where the majority of "toxic assets" were created. Banks would issue bad mortgages, lump the bad mortgages together with good ones, and sell them to other banks or privet equity groups with insurance. The issue came when the assets began to show their dark side and spoiled and the "insurance" went to be collected, the bank that made the deal couldn't pay, thusly the housing bubble popped, the market crashed, and if it hadn't been for the government provided social safety net and the quick wit and actions of Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson to bail out the larger banks, the bust could have very well let to a depression much worse than that of the 1930s.
Boom and Bust cycles and market volatility are real, and are not a direct attribution to "regulation," but simple human nature acting on the principals of capitalism.
On a different side of your argument, I'd like to hear who creates the laws for which these private courts judge by, because if their are laws that differentiate good from bad behavior, then your argument for anarcho-capitalist society is flawed, and something is no longer anarchy when a centralized "legislative" power is in existence.
A centralized government is always better than no government, even if that government imposes regulation that prevent some firms from making a few dollars or a few hundred dollars here or there.
acidman forfeited this round.
Taylor.Gregory forfeited this round.
acidman forfeited this round.
Taylor.Gregory 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.