Anarchy is Detrimental to Freedom and the Growth of Society
Pro must prove that anarchy is detrimental to BOTH freedom and society’s growth.
“Freedom” will be defined as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
“Growth of society” will be defined as the rate in which the quality of life will be improved.
First round will be opening argument for Con.
Second round will be rebuttals and opening argument for Pro.
Third round will be rebuttals.
Fourth round will be rebuttals and conclusion.
I find it strange that PRO defined the terms “freedom” and “growth of society” but not the terms “detrimental” and “anarchy”. Given that there are two definitions of anarchy, and these two definitions can be seen as entirely at odds, I will suggest one of them as the definition under discussion.
More specifically “Anarchy” describes a society without rulers. This means, by definition, that no official “government” exists.
More specifically “Detrimental” means “tending to produce ill effects” as “harm” is defined as “actual or potential ills or danger”.
Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is on PRO to demonstrate the resolution true. I may either (A) offer rebuttals only to PRO’s arguments or (B) offer rebuttals as well as my own arguments. Since PRO has not made any arguments, I will go with (B). Should I be able to provide strong arguments against the resolution, it is negated and I have won. Should PRO’s arguments fail, whether on their own merit (or, perhaps, lack thereof), or due to my rebuttals to them, I have won.
Anarchy does not necessarily equal chaos. Law can exist independent of the State.
When one defines anarchy as “without rulers”, it is sometimes assumed that therefore people will be unruly. This is not necessarily the case. What anarchists promote is a form of self-rule, where each person is free to do as they please, provided they do not use force against others. This differs from a Statist society only in that each person is subject to this. When the State is involved, people are not free to do as they please, provided they do not use force against others. Rather, people are subject to State force every day. From forced schooling (often public, government-funded schooling) to taxation to laws which can be considered senseless, the State initiates force against those in its territory. The serious downside to this is that in order to file a complaint against the State, one must use the State; essentially, one is complaining about the State to the State, which doesn’t allow much room for concession.
The State is not the only entity capable of creating laws. Laws regarding murder, theft, rape, and contract violations, for instance, existed prior to the State. The punishments were, arguably, overly severe, encouraging revenge or pursuit thereof . However, what is interesting is that the people enacted these laws, not the creator of it. That is to say, that once the laws were created and systems put in place, the citizens under Hammurabi’s Code went through the channels that existed. Likewise, a collection of people could write up particular laws, to which everyone has access, and the only thing which is then required is a legal system. Arbitrators could be selected, based on the offerings in a particular area, and things could be settled quite easily. Ebay and Amazon are the most readily available examples. Should a seller not provide the best service or send a bad product, the buyer may file a dispute and receive restitution. John Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance is perhaps the best option in creating laws for a large area.
This is directed towards life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without the State, people have the most possible freedom. People collect all of their earnings, are not imprisoned should their children not go to school, are not imprisoned for defending themselves against law enforcement, are not conscripted during times of war, and are free to sue whomever they choose should a contract be violated, among other things. Since laws can be brought into existence if need be, people will have the protection under law that is desired as well as freedom from State coercion.
Public Services can be provided by Private Industry. Government is not necessary for public services.
The primary objective of business is to earn a profit. Profit is only earned when enough people buy a particular product or service that the costs of providing it are paid for and there is something left over. [Profit=Revenue-Expense] so “profit” for a business is identical to “disposable income” for an individual. When a person desires to start a business, the very first thing that must be done is a determination of needs and wants of the public. If the public doesn’t need or want what you have, they will no purchase it, you will not get revenue, and you will thus not make a profit, per the profit equation. Moving forward, things like roads, highways, public housing and schooling, law enforcement, and other such services are things which many people want and which some people need. If the State does not exist, these services as they are now will not be provided. However, this does not mean that the services will not be provided at all. Possible ways these services could be provided include (A) consensual payment to a local provider via regular billing or (B) contract-based enforced payment.
(A) This method is basically the same as any other bill. Essentially, there is a particular provider of a service, who maybe directly sends you a bill or perhaps has their payment already including in your housing agreement, and each month, you are charged for the use of their service. This will be called the “post-pay” method. While this is the more dangerous method, I am simply offering a way for these services to be provided sans government.
(B) This method is similar to insurance payments. You pay for the service before you need so that when you do need it, you will have access to it, rather than paying after you use the service. Hence, the comparison to insurance. With insurance, you pay for the services prior to your actually needing them so then when you in fact need them, you have access to them. This will be called the “pre-pay” method.
While some people would argue that these service are “free”, the taxes that we pay serve to pay for those services. While we don’t pay for those services in the same way that rent, mortgage, gas, electricity, water, and insurance are paid, it is still being paid.
Given (2), Anarchy can increase economic productivity.
With the changes in providers of these public services, the economic conditions will change as well. With the rise in companies, there will be a rise in employment, by virtue of the fact that a company cannot provide and maintain services without employees to do so. Hence, unemployment should decrease. Along with fire fighters, police officers, doctors, nurses, teachers, school administrators, and the like, there would have to be the people who handle the influx of revenue from customers. Likewise, there would still be judges, and other such officials (though they are no longer government officials). All of this is in addition to the current businesses that we have, although corporations would no longer exist in their current iteration. With the decrease in expenses, businesses can either decrease prices or increase wages. All of this results in an increase in people’s economic position, culminating in an increase of quality of life.
Remember, in order to win this debate, PRO must not only make positive arguments for the resolution, but now, PRO must also provide sufficient rebuttals to the arguments I have here provided.
With that, I will turn things over to PRO. I look forward to your rebuttals.
Thanks to my opponent for some insightful arguments.
Anarchist communities tend to be small.
There are many barriers that divide people in a country. Some of these are:
2. Wealth/Social class
Without a government, it becomes extremely difficult for these different groups of people to work together as a collective force without someone to mediate the interests between them. Different groups will have different ideologies and different interests. These ideologies and interests will clash against each other, and the people will be divided into smaller and smaller factions. Below are two examples:
American Civil War: The South and the North had different ideologies (one wanted to abolish slavery and the other wished to adhere to tradition). This led to the South declaring itself an independent state. To prevent this from happening, the US government decided to wage war. If the United States was an anarchist society, the South would have successfully separated. Lincoln had come under pressure in the later years of the Civil war from the public (in the Northern States) to make peace with the South.
Quebec: Quebec came very close to separating from Canada in a recent referendum (because of cultural differences). One of the reason they did not was that Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau gave Quebeckers many benefits. This caused the Western provinces to begrudge the liberals. The liberals now rarely win seats in the Western Provinces. In this case, it was the government which provided the “glue” to keep Canada together.
Additionally, people tend towards people of their own race, social class, culture and religion. These attitudes will also contribute to divisions between people.
It is the job of the government to prevent conflicts between people. Without a government, the community will generally be divided smaller and smaller.
Historically, most anarchist communities have been small communities.
Military force of anarchist communities tend to be weak, as they tend to be informal militias. Additionally, as we established in Point A, anarchist countries tend to be small, there fore the military size is small.
From point A, we establish that anarchist communities tend to be small.
The disadvantage of a small community is that it tends to be bullied by neighbouring larger countries. From point B, we see that anarchist society has a poor military and cannot defend itself from large powers. Thus an anarchist society is not stable, and therefore is a threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Taking a look few instances of mass society anarchies, we see that most of the mass societies (e.g. Free Society) were overpowered by other forces.
Regulation. There needs to be an entity stronger than corporations to hold them accountable. Corporations tend to exploit the people to maximize their profits, as demonstrated by the 2008 financial crisis.
Additionally, in democratic capitalist countries, it is easier for the people to hold politicians accountable than to hold the rich accountable. If the people have a complaint against the State, they could simply vote the opposing party. Consequently, this is why, in recent years, there has been a huge rise in human rights in developed countries in recent years. Con might suggest that we could use labour parties to regulate the behaviour of corporations. This will not work for the following two reasons:
a. If the corporation benefits more from the community, then its workers will benefit more from the community as well. Consequently, there is no incentive for the workers to go on strike.
b. Capital is highly selective. If strikes do happen, or if the community decides to turn on the company, the corporation will simply outsource to another area.
Without government, public services - as we know it - will not longer exist. Con suggests that public services can be provided by private services. This is particularly dangerous. The private sector(s) that own(s) the police force is now “above law”.
The other solution Con might offer is to set aside a community fund to pay the police force. However, this will allow the rich to be “above law”. The police force are still funded by the people they need to govern. The rich will contribute larger amounts of money to the police force, and thus the police force will probably be more lenient towards them.
Modern economists (Both followers of Keynes and Smith) agree that capital is selective. Investors do not wish to invest in a country that is not secure. As established in conclusion 1, a anarchy society is not secure.
Additionally, our currency has value because the government is supporting it (built on trust). Without the government, our money will depreciate in value. Foreign governments will stop accumulating the country’s currency. Thus our living standards will decrease.
An anarchist society will inhibit the growth of society. Points C and D show that in an anarchist community, it is difficult to regulate the behaviours of corporations and wealthy elites in an anarchist community. This will lead to exploitation of the middle and lower class citizens. Point E directly shows that the living standards of citizens will decrease.
Privatizing public education and such (suggested by my opponent) will take away opportunities from lower class citizens and promote inequality. As an example, in the aftermath of the Great Recession of 2008, one out of six American were living in poverty, and almost a quarter of American children were living in poverty. By collecting taxes and then promoting things such as universal health care, the government can mitigate the harsh conditions inflicted on the country’s poor.
Con points out that with anarchy, there would be a rise in companies. This is not necessarily true. Companies can buy other companies and set up monopolies (which can then exploit the people). With the presence of governments, monopolies can be broken up. Additionally, firefighting, schools, etc, are not particularly profitable businesses. In fact, private schools still receive support from the government.
From Point F and G, we can see that anarchy can deprive the lower-class citizens from their pursuit of happiness.
Con remarks “that is to say, that once the laws were created and systems put in place, the citizens under Hammurabi’s Code went through the channels that existed”. The harsh laws were implemented by Hammurabi and enforced by him. In fact, I might argue that the laws were followed due to Hammurabi’s status as ruler and even “prophet”. An ancient carving with a preface states that Hammurabi was chosen by the gods of his people to bring the laws to them. It seems that the people followed Hammurabi’s laws because they revered him (Con can correct me if I am incorrect).
While it is true that the State is not perfect, it has been continuously improving over the last few centuries. For instance, regarding the conscription policy my opponent commented on, the US currently operates under an all-volunteer armed forces policy, which is a major improvement.
I believe that the demerits of anarchy by far outweighs its merits. I look forward to Con’s arguments.
Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, and Capital Markets Textbook
Related to concepts talked about in Joseph Stieglitz’s book “The Price of Inequality”
Related to concepts talked about in Barry Eichengreen’s book “Exorbitant Privilege”
“The Price of Inequality”
Thank you for submitting your R1, PRO. These are some interesting arguments. It took some time to plan my rebuttals.
PRO is arguing that without the existence of government, people will not be able to work together, due to what PRO terms “barriers”.
Why is it that a Christian, for example, will have a hard time working with a Dogmatic Atheist? These ideologies are highly opposed, so they serve well as examples here. The fact that people disagree on some things does not then mean they will not be able to work together. I don’t even see how these would come into play. This leads to someone doing that which is not in their best interest, particularly because people are well-versed in different areas. In order for me to get a house, for instance, I will need someone who knows how to build and/or value houses. If I am an Atheist, and the only people I can find to do this are Christians, not dealing with this person/these people will prevent me from having a house.
On a larger level, if all people choose only to cooperate with those people that are like them, they will not have access to those things they need and want. People gravitating towards those similar to them doesn’t mean they will not cooperate with people different from them. All of that said, how does government prevent this? By forcing them to work together, as was done with the American Civil War? By offering them benefits (which, incidentally, requires that benefits are taken from elsewhere)? Both of those work against freedom. People cannot choose to do as they please (within reason) and people are having their benefits taken, which could lead to economic hardship.
As I mentioned, some public services will be pushed into private industry. One such service is military. There are several ways this can happen. Assuming that anarchist communities are simply “pop-up” occurrences, and no large anarchist societies exist, the wisest thing to do is to team up. Even if Point A is true, and people will not regularly work together, it is in their best interest to provide for their own safety. Otherwise, they will lose their property. Hence, the small communities have a reason, predicated on self-interest, to forgo their predispositions and work with even those people they dislike.
Further, another method for a military to exist is as a PMC, private military company. This would, essentially, be a large scale security firm, dedicated to protecting smaller areas. Payment methods could vary, but to suggest that military force is necessarily weak due to the contingent size of anarchist communities is somewhat off-based. In all honesty, what are the benefits of invading a small area? The cost of an invasion would surely exceed the financial gain, thus rendering the invasion entirely counter-productive. Not to mention, if the anarchist community falls within the region of a State, the anarchists are protected anyway. Given that the only land-masses without government influence tend to be hard to inhabit (Antarctica and Outer-Russia), there is reason to assume people wouldn’t live there.
Agreed. However, a corporation is the construction of the State . A corporation does not exist without legislation and registration. If there is no “government” with which to register, there can be no corporations, by definition.
Seems, to me, to be the position we are in currently. The State sets down rules that it is not subject to, and which the rich can buy their way out of entirely. A cost-benefit analysis will show that it is preferable to have the rich receive lenient treatment than to have the State entirely exempt from the law.
I think there is a level of equivocation here. C1 is in regards to military security. Investors are more concerned with financial security. The very purpose of investing is to receive some kind of benefit. Financial benefit is most common, but emotional satisfaction is a benefit as well.
“Without the government, our money will depreciate in value.” This is already happening. “Inflation” is the relationship between the general level of prices of goods and purchasing power . Every year, there is a decrease in our purchasing power, due to a rise in the general level of prices; this rise is generally around 2%. Even with government, the value of our money is going down.
As for the issue of fiat currency: it only of value because of the State’s promise to pay the amount stated . That then means that our currency is nothing more than transference of debt. The calculations done for currency valuation have little to do with the word of the State. Economic and political conditions have a lot more to do with exchange rates. Arguably, it would not be difficult to construct a new “national currency” for Anarchism. The Fed could remain as is, only it would print different bills. It is not the promise to pay that makes the US dollar valuable, it is the relative value of the US dollar to other national currencies that makes it valuable. Stated another way, the word of the State is irrelevant to the exchange rate of the dollar.
If the issue is public funding, charities will do just as well, if not better, than taxes, especially when people are getting all of the money they worked to earn. People will donate more money if they have more to give. Universal healthcare, public schooling and the like can also be promoted through vouchers and generosity. PRO has left the main claim undefended, and instead argued for the abilities of government.
In relation to monopolies and buyouts, the fact that a monopoly “can” exploit workers does not then mean they will exploit workers. In fact, the fact that corporations don’t exist means that workers can then sue the company they work for. If they are, indeed, being exploited, the suit should go through, assuming it was class action (which, by the way, are fewer and fewer due to government actions).
As relates to schooling and firefighting, part of the reason these are not “particularly profitable” is that salaries are determined by government interaction, not by market interaction.
Many of PRO’s arguments center on the comparative abilities of the State and Anarchy. These only attempt to show Anarchy to be less adequate at attaining some particular values than Government. However, the resolution states “Anarchy is detrimental to freedom and the growth of society”. PRO will need to show a direct connection between anarchy and the detriment to these things. As I mentioned in my own arguments, the detriment of X to a particular Y depends on X’s relation to Y. That is to say, that the claim that (Anarchy) is detrimental to (freedom and the growth of society) depends on (Anarchy’s) direct relation to (freedom and the growth of society). Essentially, what PRO needs to argue is that Anarchy leads to less freedom than exists in a Statist society AND ALSO leads to either (A) no further growth or (B) decline/failure of society. These arguments only serve as attempts to establish that eradicating government immediately would be bad. Each of these points is easily addressed by extending the time frame with which a particular area becomes anarchistic.
If this discussion is to center on a comparison between government and anarchism, I think this redirect will be necessary. However, if we are to discuss the original resolution, PRO will have to restate these arguments to create a direct relationship between diminishment of freedoms and decline/failure of society and Anarchism.
Extending the Time Frame
The below sentence is one of the most important point in Con’s argument, so I will address this first.
“Each of these points is easily addressed by extending the time frame with which a particular area becomes anarchistic.”
That is not true.
Point A is becomes stronger by extending the time frame, as the country will be split into smaller and smaller factions.
Point B will be stronger over time if Point A holds true. The smaller regions will have a smaller military.
If private companies control the military, how can the issue of the accountability of private industries (Point C) be solved over time? There is no one to hold the industries accountable.
Point D will also not be solved over time, given Con’s position of allowing companies to own the military.
Point E (with regards to investment) will become stronger since Point A and Point B become stronger. With regards to currency depreciation and the issue with fiat currency though, Con is correct in pointing out that this problem can be solved over time.
Point F will also become stronger (if not weaker). Since companies control the military (as Con suggests) they can easily bend the rules of the community for their own benefit, and inequality will rise over the years.
Point G will also arguably be stronger. As time passes, there would be more monopolies.
Con must show how extending the time frame would refute Points A-G. As my opponent has failed to do so, the claim does not stand (Except for part of Point E).
The question is not whether an individual can work well with another individual, but whether a community can work well with another community. A community could easily become self-sufficient. Let’s assume there were two cities: City A and City B. City A is rich, and City B is poor. The people of A would not likely want to associate/help the citizens of B.
“As I mentioned, some public services will be pushed into private industry. One such service is military”
Arguably even more detrimental to freedom than having a small military. If a private industry controls the military, the industry would dictate everything in the region.
“The cost of an invasion would surely exceed the financial gain, thus rendering the invasion entirely counter-productive”
This is not true. The small area may be rich in natural resources or some other strategic value. Throughout history, small areas have been often invaded. In recent times, Luxembourg was invaded by Nazi Germany. Singapore was occupied by Japan. In medieval times, Jerusalum was often invaded.
“If the anarchist community falls within the region of a State, the anarchists are protected anyway.”
Most likely the anarchist community will not be treated in the same as the original citizens of the state. They probably would be heavily taxed. They probably wouldn’t be able to vote. The invading army could occupy the conquered region. In worst cases, war crimes could be committed on its inhabitants. The inhabitants would live in fear, as the conquerers could essentially do anything to them. This is detrimental to the “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
As defined by dictionary.com, a corporation is defined as “an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members”. As recognized by my opponent in R1, laws exist in anarchies, therefore corporations exist.
Even if my opponent was correct, I could simply restate my argument as: in an anarchy, there is no regulation of private industries (This is the term used by Con). No regulation of some industries, such as banking, will prove to be directly detrimental to the “pursuit of happiness” of individuals, as shown in the 2008 financial crisis.
“A cost-benefit analysis will show that it is preferable to have the rich receive lenient treatment than to have the State entirely exempt from the law.”
My opponent states that this is “the position we are in currently”. The question is whether anarchy is detrimental to freedom and growth of society, not that the State is detrimental to freedom. However, I will still address this point.
While it is true that the rich can “buy out their way of situations”, they are not technically “above law”. Basically, they can try to find loopholes in the law, but they cannot break the law. In Con’s proposed system, industries are free to break the law, as they would control the military and the police force.
Governments today are undoubtedly more tolerant to the rich, but they still crack down on them. For instance, Bernard Ebbers of WorldCom was sentenced to 25 years in jail by a federal court. This is better than not cracking down them at all, which would happen in Con’s anarchy.
Contrary to Con’s suggestion, the State is not exempt from the law. For instance, in a democratic country, we can impeach the president. Additionally, the people can elect the government. The people can’t elect the head of the private industries, which will control the military as in Con’s anarchy. In this case, it would be the private industries and wealthy elite that is exempt from the law.
Con’s anarchy would invest the rich and the wealth with much power. This would cause harm to lower and middle class citizens.
“C1 is in regards to military security. Investors are more concerned with financial security”.
Investors are mainly concerned with financial security, but they are still concerned with military security, as Con admits in the statement above (“more concerned” implies that investors are “still concerned” with military security, which is related to financial security).
Additionally, investors would not want to invest/run a company in a region that has a potential to secede (Point A). For instance, when Quebec wished to secede from Canada, the private industries in Montreal migrated to Toronto. The lack of investment and companies would directly decrease the living standards of people in the region.
Con has made an incorrect assumption about human nature in this point. Con is assuming that most people tilt towards the altruistic side of things.
“If the issue is public funding, charities will do just as well, if not better, than taxes, especially when people are getting all of the money they worked to earn.”
Charities can’t raise as much money as taxes. Additionally, 97% of the money an individual gives to charity never gets into the hands of people that need it.
Anarchies wouldn’t be able to mitigate the harsh conditions inflicted on the country’s poor, and would be therefore detrimental to their “pursuit of happiness”.
“In relation to monopolies and buyouts, the fact that a monopoly ‘can’ exploit workers does not then mean they will exploit workers.”
History has proven time after time that monopolies will abuse their powers (Modern economic theory also supports this). Rational human beings will want to maximize their profits. The exploitation would be detrimental to the people’s pursuit of happiness.
Additionally, monopolies also decreases competition and the efficiency of the market. This would slow down society’s growth.
“If they are, indeed, being exploited, the suit should go through, assuming it was class action”
The suit will most likely not go through. As the rich companies can hire better lawyers. Additionally, as Con suggested, the rich companies would support the military, therefore these companies would essentially be above the law.
In Round 1, I offered arguments for the negation of the resolution. PRO hasn’t provided any direct rebuttals against them. My arguments are, thus, standing. Since PRO hasn’t not addressed them, they are assumed as true for the remainder of this debate for evaluative purpose.
PRO’s rebuttals are somewhat disorganized. I will use the point-by-point schema from the previous rounds, addressing both “parts” of PRO’s defense.
PRO attacks the first paragraph of this rebuttal, while entirely ignoring the second. I said “On a larger level, if all people choose only to cooperate with those people that are like them, they will not have access to those things they need and want. A community entail the existence of individuals. If each of those individuals desires something that no one in that community has, it is the same as the community desiring something it does not have. If the only way for A to get some item T is to associate with B, then A will associate with B, or else not have T. If T is a necessary item, A has no choice but to associate with B.
I do not speak Spanish very well. My family, in fact, does not speak Spanish well. Language is a much more significant barrier to interaction that social class or religion. If two people don’t speak the same language, it becomes difficult to communicate. Difficulties in communication cause interactive instances to decrease. Without interactive instances, people cannot associate at all. PRO is arguing that things which aren’t as apparent as a person’s language (their religion), or as preventative of interactive instances (their social status) cause enough issues that two cities will not, under any circumstances, interact.
“…the industry would dictate everything in the region”
I don’t see how this is detrimental. This is already the case with state government. With PMC’s people voluntarily give up their income, and are not put in boxes for not doing so. Rather, they just lose the protective services of the PMC.
“Strategic value” only makes sense in war times. If natural resources do exist in a particular area, trade is much more efficient than invasion. Given the historical issues with occupation of lands (Singapore and Jerusalem are examples), it would be prudent to find a way to gain the resources without violence. Bloodshed is generally the least preferable course of action. Trade is more prudent. Should trade not work, chances are the small area is already prepared for invasion, and has reached out to allies. Unfortunately, given the size of the invading nation, the choices of actions are limited.
Why is this the “most likely” course of events?
The fact that laws exist does not automatically mean corporations exist. Corporations depend on the existence of laws, but laws can exist without corporations. “Legal personhood” need not be extended to businesses. Arguably, it should not, as the legal distinction of people from an institution is part of the reason anarchists oppose the State. Notably, people are to be held responsible for their actions. Companies are not “people”*, hence, companies cannot be held responsible for their actions. The owners, however, can. Without the concept legal personhood being applied to non-living things, the term “corporation” is no referential.
Despite PRO misunderstanding of my statement, I will address the points here. If we are in the same position with the State, then getting rid of it is not detrimental, as no ill effects are produced from doing so. Without a State, we would be living in an anarchy, by definition.
PRO seems to be arguing that because we can impeach the president (remove him/her from office) that therefore the president is not above the law. Taking only those laws which mention the interactions of people (which is what anarchists do), the government is guilty of theft (taxation, involuntary transference of personal items), kidnapping (placing into boxes people who have not wronged anyone else), and murder (killing of people, not in self-defense), just to name a few. The reason government isn’t considered “guilty” is because it has conferred onto itself the power to do all of these things, and we supposedly imply consent by living in the land area that the State rules over. This is no different from a gang ruling over some particular area, except that the State is considered legitimate because it calls itself such.
PRO has yet to provide argument as to why the wealthy elite and heads-of-company would be exempt from the law. The point about the rich applies to both anarchy and Statism.
If the reason for private industry being exempt from the law is that it controls the military, that would make it the case that government is exempt from the law. PRO has created a contradiction with this argument.
What does the secession of a particular region have to do with the access of people to the companies that were once there? PRO seems to be stating that ALL of private industry in Quebec migrated to Montreal. This claim requires some kind of evidence to be presented. Furthermore, even with that evidence presented, it seems like a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc scenario. PRO is saying that since the companies migrated around the time that Quebec mention secession that therefore they did so because Quebec mentioned secession. Even if this were true, it does nothing to suggest that there would be lack of investment or jobs in the area. An area doesn’t need companies in it to receive the benefit of those companies. A commute doesn’t prevent occupation, nor does it prevent business transactions.
F & G
Correction: I suggested that more people would be more willing to donate. As for PRO’s source for the assertion that 97% of donated money “never gets into the hands of people in need”, this source does not discuss non-profits which take direct donations, nor does it mention the agreements that non-profits must make with for-profits to even receive any donations. This doesn’t seem like an issue with charities, but rather an issue with companies which prey upon charities. PRO makes the claim that charities can’t raise as much money as taxes, but does not back this up. Arguably, there would be more opportunities for the poor, given the new jobs that must open up to accommodate the loss of government services. Additionally, the necessary decrease of expenditures by company could lead to increased wages. Companies no longer need to pay taxes and can spend as they please with their employees. Not to mention, some companies might become philanthropic, as practiced by known monopolist John D Rockefeller, who reportedly gave funding to several universities, as well as to his church and medical research initiatives . PRO’s universal claim that monopolists will exploit their workers is refuted.
Monopolies, by definition, decrease competition, but I don’t see how the characteristics of a monopoly equate to market inefficiency. If PRO is referring to the fact that monopolies do not price as would be “expected” in market equilibrium, this much is already common economic knowledge. How this then means a society’s growth is “slowed” is not apparent. PRO has made yet another unsupported assertion.
As for the “exploited employees”, better lawyers does not prevent the suit from going through. Exploitation is a violation of what are considered “universal human rights”. As such, all that is needed is proof of the exploitation. The suit will go through if it can be proven that exploitation is occurring.
With that, I turn things over to PRO. Hopefully, a rebuttal to my arguments is provided.
“In Round 1, I offered arguments for the negation of the resolution. PRO hasn’t provided any direct rebuttals against them. My arguments are, thus, standing.”
While it is true that I have not rebutted against Con’s argument number 1, I have rebutted against arguments 2 and 3.
Points C and D are directly related to argument 2. Point G is directly related to argument 3. We have been debating these issues for the past few rounds. So Con is incorrect is assuming that arguments 2 and 3 are true for evaluative purposes for the rest of the debate.
“preventative of interactive instances (their social status) cause enough issues that two cities will not, under any circumstances, interact”
I have not stated “under any circumstances”. I simply stated that communities would not likely be able to interact with another community with differences.
“If T is a necessary item, A has no choice but to associate with B.”
When the size of a community has grown large enough, community A does not need to associate with community B. For instance, people in Texas do not technically have to associate with people in Maine. Additionally, even if T is a necessary item, A does not need to form a “country” with B. For instance, Singapore imports 90% of its agricultural products. However, it does not form a body with the countries it is trading with.
“I don’t see how this is detrimental. This is already the case with state government.”
I’ve already argued against this point. To summarize, it is easier to hold the State accountable than to hold industries accountable. Even if people stop giving money to the PMC, the PMC could be supported by the wealthy elite and the holders of monopolies, whose interests would be protected by the PMC.
“If natural resources do exist in a particular area, trade is much more efficient than invasion.”
This may be true, but historical issues of the occupation of land have shown that humans choose to gain resources/land through violence. From Jerusalem to European Colonialism to WWII, people have tried to take land and resources by force. Additionally, matters of “nationalism” and “land dispute” are evident even to this day. The Arab-Israeli conflict is such an example. There is also the chance that some warmonger like Adolf Hitler or Napoleon to take control of a neighbouring country.
“Why is this the “most likely” course of events?”
Because history has proven so. The “losers” of a war usually have to pay repercussions and will most likely have less rights.
Con states that anarchies could rely on allies for support. However, the allies may not always decide to help the anarchist society. The people will have to always live in fear of this. This would be cause harm to the “pursuit of happiness”.
Even if my opponents rebuttal is correct, Con has not addressed the second part of my argument. Therefore it holds.
“If the reason for private industry being exempt from the law is that it controls the military, that would make it the case that government is exempt from the law.”
As I pointed out earlier, in a democratic country, the people elect the government. So the people can exert a certain amount of control over the government. In Con’s anarchist society however, the people cannot exert control over the private company. I acknowledge that Con is correct in pointing out that we cannot (for instance) put our president in jail, but we can at least remove him from power, which cannot be done in Con’s anarchy. In our current democratic country, the president can only serve a term of 4 years (other officials can only serve in office for a certain amount of time), while the head of companies can remain in charge indefinitely. There are also other parties who constantly openly challenging the party that is currently heading the country; we can also put other federal officials into jail.
Pro did not rebut against my first argument in Point E (about the military), so that still stands. As for Con’s arguments against the secession of the government, I am not implying that ALL of the private industries moved, but that there will be certain industries that would migrate away from that area. This would cause the region to lose jobs.
“There would be more opportunities for the poor, given the new jobs that must open up to accommodate the loss of government services.”
Then wouldn’t there be a net gain of zero jobs? Additionally, regarding Con’s point of increasing wages, Con does not explain how the company would decrease expenditures.
Con is missing the point. The point is not whether the fault lies with companies or the charities, but that most of the money we donate does not reach the people that need it. Additionally, if it is, as Con suggest, the fault of the company, then this problem would be even more rampant in a society where companies are invested with enormous amounts of power (This is actually another good example that companies are mostly motivated by greed, which relates to Point G).
Here’s a good example why Con’s idea of charity won’t work very well (that people don’t donate much to charities). Bermuda has very little tax. However, despite being a wealthy country, its elderly don’t fare well compared to less wealthy countries. 35% of its elders live below the poverty line. In this case, the quality of life of seniors and “their pursuit of life” is damaged.
Monopolies decrease competition. Most studies and experts agree that decreasing competition decreases economic efficiency. Here are two studies  that proves or assumes this relationship. Most economists today hold this to be true. Since monopolies decrease productivity, it would lead to slower growth.
The fact that John D. Rockefeller contributed to charities doesn’t mean he didn’t exploit his workers. In fact, critics charge that his labour practices were unfair.
Monopolies have the potential to exploit both consumers and workers. A monopoly can essentially control all the businesses in one region, and charge premiums on its products. The danger is always there. In today’s society, we have eliminated this danger (at least in the USA). By allowing the possibility of this danger, we would be going one step back. Con said “if we are in the same position with the State, then getting rid of it is not detrimental”. Conversely, since we are allowing this danger to potentially occur, we are moving backwards, and consequently it is detrimental. If exploration does occur in the future, then it would be harmful to the citizens’ pursuit of happiness.
For instance, today in developing countries, companies have water monopolies. While it is true that the government there are not doing their jobs, this problem cannot be solved by abolishing the governments in the third-world countries. Rather, we need to work together to form a more responsible government that can ensure the universal access of clean water for its own people (Like the US can ensure universal access to its own people). Abolishing the governments and investing the private companies with power will reduce the chance of solving this problem (This example also shows that monopolies that exploit the people do exist).
In conclusion, I believe that the “harm” caused by anarchies to freedom and the quality of life exceeds the good. Thanks to Con for the debate!
“Points C and D directly related to Argument 2. Point G related directly to Argument 3.”
The fact that these points relates to my arguments does not mean that they are rebuttals to my arguments. Even if they were treated as such, the rebuttals I have offered thus far then serve as defense.
Point C focuses on the accountability of government officials as opposed to that of business owners. Point D deals with the issue of public services and the assertion by PRO that “the rich will be above the law”. The primary conclusion of Argument 2 was that public services can be provided by Public Industry. The “accountability” of the business owners is in the very business transactions that are required for operation. If the business doesn’t operate as it should, civilians can simply opt out of paying and side with another business. In regards to the rich being “above the law”, PRO offers no argument as to why this is detrimental. My response was that we are in the same position as relates to the State. Since we are in the same position, by definition, anarchy can’t be said to be detrimental in this regard.
Point G seems to be focused on the rise of new companies, which is entirely tangential to the main point of Argument 3. Argument 3 argues for economic development due to the erasure of government services. Since there are several services which are necessary (law enforcement is one of these), someone must step in to provide them. The fact that a company is the only service provider does nothing against the main point of Argument 3. PRO offers support for the assertion that monopolies decrease efficiency through the citing of two sources that merely assert the same thing, with no arguments to support them. The correlation between competition and productivity is merely that. A correlation. The absence of one doesn’t necessitate the absence of the other, any more than the presence of one necessitates the presence of the other. PRO doesn’t even use either of these papers as support for these arguments. Rather, PRO expects myself and voters to read them, which is poor etiquette on PRO’s part.
Now, these points do relate to my arguments, but they do not serve as rebuttals to my arguments. As an example, one could take this argument:
The rebuttal that “men” can be used to single out the male sex is indeed related, but it is not a rebuttal to the argument.
I think I have provided decent enough rebuttals to PRO’s points. So many of them are unsupported assertions that PRO cannot affirm the resolution. Even so, I will clarify a few things.
Association doesn’t require the creation of a country. The main assertion with Point A is that Area/Country/Group A will likely not work with Area/Country/Group B. I have explained why this is not necessarily the case, and cannot be said to be “likely” the case given only what PRO has offered. I have already explained why religion and social class are unlikely to cause issues, due to their often unnoticed existed. I conceded culture, as culture includes language often times, and language is a significant barrier.
PRO has made a number of universal claims, but only uses three (3) examples to support it. PRO’s argument only serves to show that on occasion, humans choose violence over peaceful acquisition. PRO does nothing to provide arguments as to why this would be this case when an anarchist society is involved. In order to affirm the resolution, PRO must at least provide such arguments.
PRO then asserts that living in fear leads to harm to the pursuit of happiness, but doesn’t provide any explanation as to why this is so. Without such explanation, this is an unwarranted assertion
This seems to be a concession of this point.
As for my decision not to discuss the regulation of companies, PRO has made the assumption that there will be no regulation at all, which is entirely unwarranted. The 2008 Financial Crisis had just as much to do with Government as it did the Financial Sector. So, if the issue is the banks, the fact that the Financial Crisis was partially caused by Freddie Mac and Fanny May, suffice to say government is detrimental in this area. The State purchased the bad loans from banks, who then continued to issue loans to inadvisable candidates. Since the candidates were inadvisable, due to bad credit history, bad jobs, or poor financial habits, the debt was consistently sold to the State. The houses were foreclosed on, and the result was many empty houses which resulted in the houses being of low value.
Actually, no. The old government jobs must be replaced, and then there must be people who construct the new buildings, take care of accounts, and do maintenance, etc. Net job gain would be at least positive. An exact number can’t be selected. As for decreased expenditures, taxes count as expenses. Without taxes, expenses necessarily decrease. It’s simple math. I actually did explain this, though.
The claim is that 97% of the money donated to charities doesn’t go to those in need. The source offered doesn’t support this claim. Rather, the source offered explains that the charities that work with companies to receive donations don’t receive the entirety of the money raised. To say that this displays an issue with charities is simply false. To suggest that since this is the case, therefore charities cannot work to raise money is off-based.
Skimming through PRO’s article on Bermuda: (1) the assertion that Bermuda has low taxes is unsupported by the Wikipedia article. (2) The fact that Bermuda has a high average income does not mean it is “a wealthy country”. The article cited by PRO mentions Gross National Income per capita (GNI). “Per capita” means the same as “per person”. Sadly, GNI isn’t regarded as a measure economic development. Gross Domestic Product or Gross National Product are, however. The article suggests that Bermuda is more affluent than the US, despite a gap of several hundred billion dollars’ worth of GDP. PRO’s wiki article on the subject mentions a GDP of only 4.5 billion USD. The US has a GDP of 16.8 trillion. So, I would posit that the article is either mistaken, or presents misleading evidence. Either way, these sources are unreliable.
This debate has been one unsupported assertion after another. There are a number of ways to affirm the resolution. However, PRO resorts to unsupported assertions, generalities from small sample sizes, and unreliable sources to affirm the resolutions.
The arguments that I presented in Round 1 remain largely untouched, aside from a passing glance and nod to them by PRO as PRO offered their own positive arguments. By definition, PRO would have to directly attack my arguments in order to be offering a rebuttal. That said, PRO hasn’t offered any rebuttals to my positive arguments. Rather, PRO has provided a number of counter rebuttals.
The conclusion that PRO has been attempting to reach has not been reached. I provided an explicit definition of “detrimental” to which PRO has not objected, even providing clarification of “ill effects” in the comments section. The full definition of “detrimental” is “tending to produce effects which are undesirable or not conducive to the attainment of a particular goal”.
There was a two-fold resolution here: that freedom AND growth of society are harmed by anarchy. PRO’s arguments generally fail to address the latter, and barely address the former.
I leave it to the audience to decide the victor. Thanks to PRO for the debate.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|