The Instigator
Capitalistslave
Pro (for)
The Contender
Gregg_Hyde
Con (against)

Anarcho-capitalism is theoretically impossible to have for large societies

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Gregg_Hyde has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2017 Category: Economics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 734 times Debate No: 100007
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)

 

Capitalistslave

Pro

I am arguing in favor of the resolution, so I will argue it is impossible to have an anarcho-capitalist society in large societies.

Rules of debate:
1) Be civil, no insults, ad hominem, or personal attacks
2) The total number of rounds minus 1 should be used for argument since I am not using round 1 for argument. I would suggest that con use the first round just for acceptance, but they could still use it for argument if they want, but in this instance, I believe it would make more sense for me to start off the debate.
3) The last round used for debate should not have any new arguments in it, only rebuttals to your opponent's arguments. New facts can be brought up here, but only in rebuttal to your opponent's claims
4) I've been having trouble with trolls accepting my debates lately, so here is a warning with trolls: I will block you from accepting any of my future debates if you troll.

Definitions:
Anarcho-capitalism: a political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property, and free markets[1]
Further definition of the term can be found in my source.
Impossible: Not able to occur, exist, or be done. [2]
Large society: Any society as large or larger in population as the average state within the United States.[3]

Note: If con objects to any rules or the definition provided, please state so in the comments section before accepting the debate. We will then work something out and compromise on rules and/or the definition. Otherwise, if con accepts the debate without doing this, it is assumed they accept my definitions and rules.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
[3] This is my own definition.
Gregg_Hyde

Con

I thank Capitalistslave for setting up this debate and discussing my concerns with me in the comments. I look forward to an ever important debate for those like us who believe in freedom from the state.

As Con I will be providing my arguments as to why an anarcho-capitalist society can exist even as a 'large society' and refuting Capitalistslave's arguments against such proposition.

I accept the rules and definitions provided by Capitalistslave. I understand that failure to abide by these rules will justify me losing this debate.

Despite Capitalistslave giving me the opportunity to use this round as an opening argument, if I so wanted, I will use it as acceptance only.

Good luck to my opponent!
Debate Round No. 1
Capitalistslave

Pro

Thank you for accepting the debate, and good luck to you.

To my knowledge, there has never been an attempt at an anarcho-capitalist society
One can do a search through the web, library, or anything else and confirm that there appears to be a lack of societies which have attempted to be anarcho-capitalist. In my search, there may be individual cities which have attempted it, but it has never been attempted on a larger scale.

If you were to look on this wikipedia page of a list of anarchist communities[4], none of the nations listed in "mass communities" are anarcho-capitalist. All are anarchist, but they are anarcho-left, one(revolutionary catalonia) is anarcho-syndicalist, at least one is anarcho-communist: the free territory of Ukraine, and the rest all seem to be leftist. You can verify this by clicking on each of the examples and reading about each one, as I've done. From clicking on all of the examples in the next section entitled "Intentional communities", it looks like there might be a few that are anarcho-capitalist, but it's very vague. Again, you can click on each one too if you like. Still, these communities are the sizes of cities and do not matter in terms of this debate as they don't fit my definition of "large society".

Contention 1: I therefore contend that if anarcho-capitalism was theoretically possible, it would have at least been attempted once on a large scale, but sadly, it has not. Why has it not been attempted while anarcho-communism, anarcho-socialism, etc have?

How would private property be defended in an anarchist society?
For anarcho-capitalism to exist, as was part of the definition, there needs to be private property. However, what is to stop the workers from taking control of the means of production and the capitalists' property? Now, I suppose you could argue that capitalists would be able to have private police forces protect their own property. That's fine, but without the government, all forms of weaponry would be legal. No longer would the ordinary citizen be debarred from weapons of mass destruction, or higher quality weapons that the government regulates or completely bans. In other words: the police force would be on equal footing with the ordinary person. The side that wins is the side that has more numbers. There are many more poor and middle class people than rich people, or private police forces who would be willing to defend the capitalists' property. Unless majority of the middle and poor classes are police, this just wouldn't work.

Contention 2: Private property would be impossible to defend from the masses, especially since there is no government preventing people from getting high quality weapons of murder. I contend, therefore, that the defense of private property requires the state, and that an anarcho-capitalist society would result in some sort of anarcho-leftist society if given enough time.


While my arguments were short, and I only offered two contentions, I believe they are compelling. I turn this debate over to my opponent.

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Capitalistslave 11 months ago
Capitalistslave
Alright then
Posted by Gregg_Hyde 11 months ago
Gregg_Hyde
Capitalistslave I have developed most of my response but I can not finish it right now, I have other matters to attend to, so expect it either later today or by early tomorrow.
Posted by Gregg_Hyde 11 months ago
Gregg_Hyde
Alright. I'll accept the debate. I don't think anything else needs clearing up.
Posted by Capitalistslave 11 months ago
Capitalistslave
I'll be afk for a few hours, so if you wanted any other changes, you may risk someone else taking the debate before you do.
Posted by Capitalistslave 11 months ago
Capitalistslave
I'll make both changes to my debate to make it clear to voters
Posted by Capitalistslave 11 months ago
Capitalistslave
Gregg_Hyde: I see your point, we would be talking about in theory. I recognize that the existence of authoritarian states are a threat to anarchist societies. I know that all to well, two such anarchist leftist societies, the free territory of Ukraine, and Revolutionary Catalonia, were destroyed due to authoritarian states taking over their country.

So yes, I would be debating that "in theory" it is impossible, and not just because it wouldn't be able to exist due to authoritarian regimes
Posted by Gregg_Hyde 11 months ago
Gregg_Hyde
The only problem is I don't really agree with anarcho-capitalism. I do in theory, it all makes sense and would work if we lived in a world of equal powers. But we don't do we. Authoritarian states like Russia and China exist as a huge threat to the world and especially a free society.

So I guess the question I'd like to ask is whether this debate is about in theory anarcho-capitalism will never work or just because of the way the world is right now.
Posted by Capitalistslave 11 months ago
Capitalistslave
Let me know in a comment if you want to accept and then I'll also remove that part of the definition from the debate. Or we could just both state we agree to ignore that part. Either way.
Posted by Gregg_Hyde 11 months ago
Gregg_Hyde
I'm certainly considering it.
Posted by Capitalistslave 11 months ago
Capitalistslave
Ah, I see, well I'm not a stickler on keeping that part of the definition as part of the definition of anarcho-capitalism. If you were interested in debating me, I would be willing to take that part out of the definition.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.