The Instigator
roark555
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Anarcho capitalism.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
lannan13
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 658 times Debate No: 79961
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

roark555

Pro

I will be arguing in favour of anarcho capitalism. Round 1 is acceptance, 2 is opening arguments, 3-4 is additional arguments and rebuttals, 5 is closing remarks. Good luck con.
lannan13

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
roark555

Pro

roark555
Pro
Thank You for accepting this debate challenge.
Anarcho-Capitalism as I define it is a system where there is no state. Instead, it is a system of private property where all services are provided voluntary through the market.

My general approach to anarcho capitalism is based of libertarianism first and foremost. Now there are two axioms to libertarianism, two sides of the same coin, and these are the non aggression principle and property rights. The non agression is basically what it sounds like: do not initiate force, do not aggress against others. The only time force is legitimate is in self defense or defense of another. It's not very controversial, because who supports murder, assault, rape or theft? The second axiom is property rights. So let's say Person X has a cap on his head, and I snatch it off. Have I committed aggression? It depends. If it was X's hat and I just grabbed it then I am at fault, but if he stole it from me yesterday and I simply was repossessing it then I am innocent.
Libertarians when It comes to property usually borrow from the Lockian/Rothbardian homesteading theory. In other words, you mix your labour with the land, you cut down trees and build a cabin, grow crops, domesticate a cow etc, and this is how you come to acquire property if it is unowned. And because you own the property, you can transfer titles. Purchase, barter, gambling, and charity are examples of legitimate title transfer.

So by now you're probably asking just what the hell this has to to with this debate about anarcho capitalism and the state.
It relates to it because there are two main characteristics that the state possesses that distinguishes it from other institutions, and that is it's ability to tax and it's ability to forcefully eliminate competition in the provision of services. It's held to a different moral standard than other people. Let's give an example: in our everyday lives, when we want to accomplish things we get together voluntarily, we raise money, we persuade, we trade, we interact in many different formats, but never with guns. Never coercively. I didn't force anybody into accepting this debate challenge, and furthermore if I had, nobody would think it morally permissible. Let me expand upon this further.
Let's suppose that there is a man named Stuart. Stuart thinks that his town ought to have a public park. So he goes around collecting funds to pay for the endeavor. Being the greedy capitalist pig that I am, I refuse to pay when he comes to My door. In response, he takes out a baseball bat, breaks my knee and steals my wallet. What would the general reaction be? Something along the lines of "this man should be criminally prosecuted, he committed assault with a weapon and armed robbery." , and justly so. But let's tweak this scenario a little bit. Suppose that people in my neighborhood vote for Stuart to take my money forcibly, and he does. Most people would still find this morally repugnante. Theft is theft.
But let's go a little farther. Suppose now that Stuart is a member of the republican party, and he is voted into public office. What then happens when the time comes to pay my taxes, and I refuse, and men with guns clad in costumes and badges break into my house an forcibly remove me, and lock me in a cage? Stuart is now a public servant, a selfless representative of te will of the people. People chant his name, people revere him wheras a mere change in terminology and consistency would deem him a common thief, a looter for doing virtually the same thing as in the previous examples. This is explained better when German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer talks about what he refers go as the economic means vs the political means.

Another characteristic which I mentioned which the state possesses is it's ability to outlaw competition with it. For example, if you and I want to start a software company. We do not have it intrinsically in our possession to ban competiting entrepreneurs. We may be the favored business because our customers prefer our product to that of our competitors this limiting competition in that sense, but we cannot legally ban a group like Microsoft from entering the market to compete with us. By contrast, the state claims coercive monopoly on the provision of several services such as the law, law enforcement, currency, national defense, education, roads and in My country healthcare, to name a few. In this cases, competition is immensely limited, or sometimes outright banned. In My home country of Canada, private medical clinics are virtually outlawed. This presents some problems. First, there is the issue of aggression. The government monopoly on protection is analogous to outlawing competition in t-shirts or wrist watches. Force is being initiated against innocent people.
Another problem, this time economically speaking that when you are funded coercively through taxation and fiat currency and competition is banned, what real incentive do you have to provide a good service? In a free market system where businessmen must compete for the money of their customers, If they fail to provide a good service for a reasonable price they will go out of business because of competition. Your pay depends on your ability to satisfy customers. By contrast, In a state run system you have no real incentive because regardless of what you do you have the guns and the power To collect taxes, and if someone tries to compete with you they will be criminally prosecuted. As an example, there is a significant problem with police violence in the united states, and surprisingly in Canada as well. If there was legitimate competition in the provision of protection services, police that were abusive would e fired or punished substantially, because in a free market your reputation is very important, and if said reputation comprised of yor employees beating up black people you would lose customers fast, as people would take there business to less violent agencies.

This is a brief introduction to Anarcho Capitalist/libertarian thought and argumentation, I look forward to your opening arguments, followed by two rounds of rebuttals, further discussion and argument.
Thank you.
http://wiki.mises.org......
Report this Argument
lannan13

Con

I thank my opponent for the debate. Though I will go at it from a different angle as I'm Proo Capitalism and very close to AnCap, but there are just a few things I tend to disagree with here. I will be running a Minarchy Counter-plan.



P1.The Government should only act to enforce the imperatives of Perfect Duties.
P2. X does not meet the standard of a Perfect Duty.
C1: Thus, the Government should not act to enforce X.

""Kant's first formulation of the CI states that you are to “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law... Perfect duties come in the form ‘One mustnever (or always) φ to the fullest extent possible in C’, while imperfect duties, since they enjoin the pursuit of an end, come in the form ‘One must sometimes and to some extent φ in C’" [1]

According to the above we see that Kant establishes two duties of that of the government; Perfect Duties and Imperfect Duties. Perfect Duties are those things of which the government must provide to ensure that the government and that society is fully functional. What are these things you may ask? These things are the simple things ensured under that of the Social Contract that you give up for a Civilized Society (not to kill, rape, steal, etc...[of which I'll get into here in a moement]). These things are indeed key as we can see that this ensures that of a Minarchy at the minimum. What that means is that the Government is to ensure that the people are safe. Everything else falls into that of the Imperfect Duties. Now note that these things may protect and benefit the public, we can see that if they're not of the Social Contract like ideals that they automatically fall into this category and SHOULD NOT be carried out by the government, but by Private entities.

“Any action is right if it can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law, or if on its maxim the freedom of choice of each can coexist with everyone's freedom in accordance with a universal law” [2]

We can see that if the government intervenes on the behalf on the people to infringe on that of an Imperfect duty that they would undermining humanity to achieve their due ends. We can see and must ensure that the Imperfect Duties are carried out by the Private Entites like trade and such. [3] As much as I would love to further privitization we can see that it would be improbable for the private companies to say, provide military protection. At this point we will end up with something like that of a great deal of Warlords much like what occured in Bosnia. There they would go from town to town and ask for reperations in return for pertection. [4] Though this can easily be dealt with, but when people stop paying or the warlords get into it for compeittion it could spell danger when it comes to the individuals in the cities and such. We would see that anarchy would be devistating. We could also look to the example of Somolia. They have no government and they are just a warring land and have been for some time. Not to mention that they are constantly plauged by pirates.

Thomas Hobbes has also shown that humanity, by nature, is rotten. That we will rape and pillage everything unless we have a threat. The only thing dettering these acts are the threat of the law. [5] Thus the Social Contract must be created between individuals. So Person A gives up his right to kill Person B as long as he gives up his right to kill Person A. This is something that would ensure tranquility, but now the issue is, what of those who violate the Social Contract? If person A, a very popular guy, kills person B, a despised factory owner, then the public might rally around Person A and he might not face punishment, but if it was the other way around then Person B would be punished outright. There wouldn't be any just way of punishment outside of mock Salem Witch Trials like Kangagroo Courts.

Another key issue with Anarcho-Capitalism is privitized currency. This is something that is a complete issue as it will be a return to the early US days when each state had different currency, but worse. It would require constant speculation. Multiple conversions and you could never side with one currency as the exchange market would be constantly and violently shifting so you might loose all your life savings in one fail swoop. [6] Even in the market today no one can perdict the volitility that it has and with what occurs with AnCap, it would destroy lives.




Sources
1. (http://plato.stanford.edu...)
2. (Lectures and Drafts on Political Philosophy, translated Frederick Rauscher and Kenneth Westphal (in preparation). Relevant contents: "Naturrecht Feyerabend" course lecture, fragments on political philosophy, and drafts of works in political philosophy.)
3. (Johnson, Robert. "Kant's Moral Philosophy." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2012.)
4. (https://www.hrw.org...)
5. (http://www.iep.utm.edu...)
6. Masters of Money: Friedrich Hayek BBC Documentary
Debate Round No. 2
roark555

Pro

I'm dealing with some personal issues at the moment, (nothing serious, just time consuming) and I won't be able to post my argument for this round. I am by no means quitting and have every intention of making a Comeback in round three. So for now, con can consider himself winning.
I will say this, however. Firstly, there has been no greater violator of the so-called " social contract " in history than government.
Secondly, the only way a government can "protect" is is by violating all of these rules. It collects taxes, a form of theft. It claims a monopoly on currency production, military, and security. Anyone who attempts to compete with them are met with violence, and possibly death.
Anyway, I apologize for this, and would be happy to get more into the specifics next round.
lannan13

Con

Since my opponent didn't get much time to argue I shall cut my argument short to be fair with him.

My opponent makes a fallous claim in that the govenrment violates the social contract, but as I have shown there can be no way that there can be a Social Contract unless there is someone to enforce it. That is what the government does. An argument against this would mean that there would be no possible social contract to exist since there is no enforcer and we'll end up with the impact that I had brought up in my last round, which was dropped.

I extend all my points across the board.
Debate Round No. 3
roark555

Pro

roark555 forfeited this round.
lannan13

Con

All points extended.
Debate Round No. 4
roark555

Pro

roark555 forfeited this round.
lannan13

Con

All points extended.

Thank you and please vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by roark555 1 year ago
roark555
Yep, that'd be it.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
Is this what you mean by the term:

DEFINITION of 'Anarcho-Capitalism' A term coined by Austrian-school economist Murray Rothbard to describe a market-based society with no government. Instead of government, all goods and services would be provided by private businesses.

I just want to make sure before accepting.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 1 year ago
johnlubba
roark555lannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Conduct point for forfeiture, and arguments dropped and not responding.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
roark555lannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF by Pro.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
roark555lannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.