The Instigator
Yarely
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Cometflash
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Anarchy is the true means of liberty

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 4 votes the winner is...
Cometflash
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,130 times Debate No: 27618
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

Yarely

Pro

I believe that only through anarchy will people be free. I believe that only through the abolition of the state and the abolition of capitalism will the people have true liberty and be free from oppression.
This is an experimental debate as I have just began informing myself about anarchism and I will see how it goes from there.

My opponent will oppose the abolition of the state and/or the abolition of capitalism as the means of liberty to the people.

Let's see how this goes
http://www.google.com......
Cometflash

Con

I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic.

Let me say that, I dislike pretty much all forms of governments to this day, but still, I feel that a government is necessary.

Since my opponent did not stipulate that I must only accept this round, I like to begin my argument.

I'll be defending the role of government and go against the notion of anarchism.

Resolution: Anarchy is the true means of liberty

Liberty;

1- the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views:

compulsory retirement would interfere with individual liberty

(usually liberties) an instance of this; a right or privilege, especially a statutory one:

the Bill of Rights was intended to secure basic civil liberties

the state of not being imprisoned or enslaved:

people who have lost property or liberty without due process

(Liberty) the personification of liberty as a female figure.

2- the power or scope to act as one pleases:

individuals should enjoy the liberty to pursue their own interests and preferences

Philosophy a person's freedom from control by fate or necessity.

informal a presumptuous remark or action:

*So liberty is basically one's freedom to do as they please. However, it can also be understood as to the protection of one's right.

Anarchy;

a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority:

he must ensure public order in a country threatened with anarchy

absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

*I will expect my opponent to lean more towards the second paragraph.

Source; http://oxforddictionaries.com...

To me freedom cannot be obtained therefore anarchy cannot obtain liberty, in the contrary, anarchy would make things worse.

One main thing is, how do you deal with security? You can just hide in your house all day, and even if you could you wouldn't be safe. Without government who control security? If someone is controlling security they are establishing power over you, and is not liberty. If someone is controlling security they also are doing privately, so the people have no say in what laws will be established, otherwise whoever control security would be acting as a government, and this wouldn't be anarchy. So how do you propose to deal with security? Should everyone defend themselves?

If there is no security, it means all prisoners are set free. Or someone will have to take the burden for securing those people, either that or erase them. If there is no security, everyone is free as they wish including many of violent crimes that we know today. But if there is security would that be a prison?

How do you deal with the unfortunate ones? Hospital sucks them dry and put them on the streets to be left to die?

How do you deal with the disable people?

Which type of mental diseases would one have to have to lose their liberty? Or would even the most disturbed people have their liberty?

How do you deal with education? If there is no one to run the system, does everything go private? If the people runs it, how can that possibly work?

When is one suppose to be free? I mean, you can't just let a child decide on what to do for themselves, but that is no restriction of age since there is no government, so an 8 years old could rebel and live home.

Who defends the state of anarchy, or are you going big with the one world anarchy?

If there is a dispute of anything, like a property, how does one go about that?

How do you establish rules in an anarchy society? Again, if some rules must be met, what age can one have a say? Do they have to meet certain criteria?

Will the individual have rights? If so which?

The above questions takes account the state of anarchy already been formed, but two very important questions is the follow;

What is necessary for a state of anarchy to be successfully created to achieve (or hope to achieve) liberty? Looking at us all as a group, and ping pointing the possibilities of every person in that group could create, being of good or bad, can you in honest feel we are prepared, or will ever be prepared in a transition to achieve such of task?
Debate Round No. 1
Yarely

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate

I however have noticed that many of my opponents arguments are flawed since it doesn't seem as if my opponent has a good understanding of what Anarchy truly is:

Anarchy:
An Anarchic ideal would be freedom from Capitalism and the Government since anarchists view both of these as limiting to true freedom.
Why Capitalism?
Because Capitalism is basically as system where everyone competes for destructive power. Capitalism is a con.

Why are crimes committed? Many common crimes such as theft, rape, homicide are by products of the current system. Then the current system creates laws and punishments for those crimes not realizing that it is that very system that is causing these crimes.

Why do people steal? People steal because they need food, they need clothes, they need supplies. How come they don't have these basic things? It is because they are poor. And why are they poor? Because in order for Capitalism to work, there needs to be people on the top and people on the bottom of the pyramid. The people on the top restrict the freedom of the people feeding from the bottom by taking most the power.

They have the "freedom" to take away the freedom of others but is that is not true freedom. It is just abuse of power which bounds freedom down.

Why do people rape? It is said that men rape women for dominance over a woman. This is cause by society and standards with gender roles. This wouldn't happen in an anarchy as anarchy wouldn't have sexual standards or oppressive gender standards. This wouldn't cause the problem of rape.

Why do people kill? Many reasons. They feel wronged, or they kill to steal, or they kill in order to not get caught for rape, or kill in order to gain fear etc. If people cooperated in a equal society and had none of these oppressive things happening, there wouldn't need to be a reason to commit these crimes.

In the capitalist system the whole working class sells its labor power to the employing class. The workers build factories, make machinery and tools, and produce goods. The employers keep the factories, the machinery, tools and goods for themselves as their profit. The workers get only wages.

This arrangement is called the wage system.

Learned men have figured out that the worker receives as his wage only about one-tenth of what he produces. The other nine-tenths are divided among the landlord, the manufacturer, the railroad company, the wholesaler, the jobber, and other middlemen.

It means this:

Though the workers, as a class, have built the factories, a slice of their daily labor is taken from them for the privilege of using those factories.That's the landlord's profit

What is left then - one-tenth of the real worth of the worker's labor-is his share, his wage.

Can you guess now why the wise Proudhon said that the possessions of the rich are stolen property? Stolen from the producer, the worker.

The whole capitalist system rests on such robbery.

The whole system of law and government upholds and justifies this robbery.

That's the order of things called capitalism, and law and government are there to protect this order of things.

Do you wonder that the capitalist and employer, and all those who profit by this order of things, are strong for 'law and order'?

But where do you come in? What benefit have you from that kind of 'law and order'? Don't you see that this 'law and order' only robs you, fools you, and just enslaves you?

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu......;



The Government:

The nature of the government is naturally oppressive. The fact that the government controls most things that we do in a daily basis is oppressive and controlling. Any of our rights are not 100 % there all the time as the government can take away your rights any time they want. Voting doesn't make much of a difference as the government has a two-party system (making almost no room for third parties) and the electoral college ultimately decides who is president. Neither Democratic nor Republican democracies make much of a difference as the government obviously doesn't want to give the people too much freedom or control over the way the country is run. As Emma Goldman once said "If voting changed anything, they would make it illegal."
The Government steals money from the people and wastes it on deals with China, trade, profit building activities, war, campaigns, weapons for war, oil, etc.

The Government gets on by, by convincing the people that without Government there is no order. Why is it more idealistic to believe that the people can control their own lives and cooperate to make a society to work than keeping the corrupt current system and expecting it to suddenly "get better?"



Now after that lesson I will refute my opponents arguments

To you freedom cannot be obtained? Why is that?
That is because the system has done so much damage that everyone believes that everything will stay that same and that freedom can never be obtained.
Security: In true Anarchy, there would be little to no crime because there would no reason for crimes. There would be no reason to kill, rape, or steal as everyone is equal and free.
But when there is crime, the person won't be imprisoned but has their own choice to receive therapy or not. They will not be forced to.
The unfortunate people would obviously receive help from doctors, I don't see how that would change in Anarchism.

Mentally disturbed people would receive help and the people will decide how to deal with the mentally disturbed. Remember, in an Anarchy, the rules would not be set in stone. The community ultimately decides what to do.

Education: In a no money Anarchic system, schools would be built by people who would want to build them. You can recieve education if you like. Remember, it is always your choice.

Everyone will be free no matter what age. But of course there are some authoritarian exceptions with parents and children but you should have a good reason to use authoritarian choices. It really depends

Anarchy most likely would start in a small town and work really well in a small town. It could spread but only if the people want to be under an anarchy

In the subject of property, you should know that there is a difference between property, and possession. Anarchy would not have private property but of course you have possessions. Here is a video explaining it:




Rules: The people would establish rules in the society that they all agree on

The thing that is neccesary for a state of Anarchy to achieve liberty is the abolition of government, capitalism and the unity of the people to coexist peacefully and equally

“To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."
General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century, translated by John Beverly Robinson (London: Freedom Press, 1923), pp. 293-294.”
― Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Cometflash

Con

My first round was really just a test to my opponent, I did not expect her to answer any of the questions. I was only trying to see if she was truly representing this type of anarchism.

Let me explain.

In anarchy (the one she propose), the group as a whole should come to an agreement of what the state of anarchy is, because if it doesn't happen so, the person or group (not whole) to start the anarchy will dictate what the state of anarchy is, which wouldn't be anarchy.

So can my opponent truly have answered any of those questions for the people as a whole?

She can only answer those questions based on her own ideology, or if you accept that she went around and took account all other anarchists, debate with them, and come to such of an agreement as the answers, best possible scenario you have the idea of a group that can agree on, but you don't have the idea of everyone as a whole.

So how can anyone state that "Anarchy is the true means of liberty". The only way one can say such, is if the state of anarchy had already been created and was successfully done so to the point to achieve the state of true liberty.

So unless my opponent know of such time that the state of anarchy existed in such of way, and gave the answers based on such state of anarchy, I don't see how I can take her answers into account.

___
Why did I said that you cannot obtain freedom?

Because freedom require no rules to be in place. We are very much different from one another, and because of those differences we cannot agree on everything, unless compromise. If you are compromising you are forcing yourself to submit by something you do not agreed upon. That is not freedom.

So if we were alike, there would be no need for rules, because we would just naturally do things that we all agreed on. "Unfortunately" there is not so.

Why did I write "unfortunately"? Because I feel differences is a positive thing, even though such also cause negatives. If we were all alike, we wouldn't be able to learn from one another.
I'm keen to seek other ways of thinking, so this would really feel terrible to me if became true.

A lot of things you wrote are concepts since they haven't ever being observed, and proven true. I like the concepts you presented however, and they could be right, but we cannot possibly know unless we put it into practice and see the end result.

I also believe there is a reason why people commit what we call crimes, and do believe that we should be looking to what the reasons behind all is, and try to eliminate the reason and prevent crimes from being committed.
However, I don't count on the completely elimination of so call crimes.

So unless there is an anarchy state that was created and succeeded to the ways you propose (of which I have no idea of existence), I don't see how your resolution can possibly be proven true.

The Government:

Without a government, and with an anarchy state, the people as a whole must make decisions in a multitude of issues, of which the government is trusted to make. Imagine we all having to take our time to discuss all those issues and come in an agreement with. The bigger the population the the harder will be to conduct such of thing. New issues would be very much to come to be.
We would be spending a lot of our time just discussing the issues we must solve, and how to go about them.

The problems you stated, is not because of the government system, is because of the people who runs it, and yet you propose more people to run the system, meaning all of us.
I think politics should be eliminated, and proper personal should be the ones trusted to run the government. Meaning, people who actually know what they are doing, and fit for the job, those jobs should require qualifications. Most politicians are all talks, and are good at convincing people.
This makes me think... a group of people in the anarchist state, could very well convince people of their ideology, that could create a corruption on the system put in place.
"Some people are sheep", that saying have some true in it.

PRO wrote;
"The thing that is neccesary for a state of Anarchy to achieve liberty is the abolition of government, capitalism and the unity of the people to coexist peacefully and equally".

This was like the only question I truly wanted to be answered, so I thank you for this. The two first things could be achieved, the bold part would be very unlikely. Again, the bigger the population, the most unlikely it would be.
Debate Round No. 2
Yarely

Pro

"In anarchy (the one she propose), the group as a whole should come to an agreement of what the state of anarchy is, because if it doesn't happen so, the person or group (not whole) to start the anarchy will dictate what the state of anarchy is, which wouldn't be anarchy." -Con

An Anarchy would most likely start among fellow Anarchists in a small town. The way it would work would be that everyone in the town would get together in meetings and decide how things would run.

The people as a whole would generally come into agreement of the state of anarchy

I pretty much do have an idea of everyone as a whole deciding together how they want things to run. Everyone basically wants the same thing in life whether you believe it or not.


"You yourself know very well what you want, and so does your neighbor.

You want to be well and healthy; you want to be free, to serve no master, to crawl and humiliate yourself before no man; you want to have well-being for yourself, your family, and those near and dear to you. And not to be harassed and worried by the fear of to-morrow.

You may feel sure that every one else wants the same. So the whole matter seems to stand this way:

You want health, liberty, and well-being. Every one is like yourself in this respect.

Therefore we all seek the same thing in life.

Then why should we not all seek it together, by joint effort, helping each other in it?

Why should we cheat and rob, kill and murder each other, if we all seek the same thing? Aren't you entitled to the things you want as well as the next man?

Or is it that we can secure our health, liberty, and well-being better by fighting and slaughtering each other?

Or because there is no other way?

Let us look into this.

Does it not stand to reason that if we all want the same thing in life, if we have the same aim, then our interests must also be the same? In that case we should live like brothers, in peace and friendship; we should be good to each other, and help each other all we can.

But you know that it is not at all that way in life. You know that we do not live like brothers. You know that the world is full of strife and war, of misery, injustice, and wrong, of crime, poverty, and oppression.

Why is it that way then?

It is because, though we all have the same aim in life, our interests are different. It is this that makes all the trouble in the world."
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu...

People as a whole all have the same aims in life, but because of how unfairly the system is run, we have different interests. Since the wealthy profit from the system by always getting more and more and more, their interest is to continue profiting by stealing from the laborers. This conflicts with the interests of the poor who want a decent house and food to survive. While the poor want to get more fair wages and more decent hours, the wealthy want to keep robbing from the laborers which creates corruption and confliction. Since all our aim is the same, than why do we have conflicting interests? Because of the system that creates these conflicting interests

Since everyone wants freedom and well being, than why can't Anarchy work for the whole who want peace, eqality and well being?

"So unless my opponent know of such time that the state of anarchy existed in such of way, and gave the answers based on such state of anarchy, I don't see how I can take her answers into account."- Con

Examples of Anarchy working (Although a lot of them had to end because of outside circumstances trying to get rid of the anarchist communities unfortunately):
Freetown Christiania
Home, Washington
Life and Labor Commune
Stapleton Colony
Trumbullplex
etc.

Yes we are very different, but we more similar than we believe. Humanity all has the same goals in life but they have conflicting interests. Interests were created by society and inequality. So if we live in a community where we are equal and not hindered by authority, we have extremely similar goals in how the society would work. Which is why making decisions in the community would not be difficult as we have very similar goals we can agree on easily.

We are all different yet we are all the same. We are all human beings who bleed, and cry, and need love from friends and family to be happy. We all want happiness and freedom. We all want equality and to be treated fairly. We all want to live comfortably and to coexist equally.

We all want to be accepted and appreciated for our difference and also to work together toward our similar goals. We all want freedom of oppression and goodwill to man.

That is what we want

There would be absolutely no reasons to commit crimes as everyone has want they want and need.


The Government:
Yes I agree that it would be less convenient with a bigger population but the community will decide how the decisions would be made together with more convenience

Yes the problems I stated is because the people who run the government system are corrupt as well as the natural system.

"The problems you stated, is not because of the government system, is because of the people who runs it, and yet you propose more people to run the system, meaning all of us."-Con
How does "more people" as in "us" equate with the type of people that run the system?? The people that run the system don't generally care about the well being of people. They are more interested in the benefits of power and wielding it than actually trying to help the people coexist in equality and peace. How are a bunch of millionares who haven't experienced a day in a mill or hard labor, or a streak of poverty, or starvation, or pain, possibly what is right for the people than the people themselves??

"I think politics should be eliminated, and proper personal should be the ones trusted to run the government. Meaning, people who actually know what they are doing, and fit for the job, those jobs should require qualifications. Most politicians are all talks, and are good at convincing people."-Con
Qualifications don't mean anything in a corrupt system. That's like saying that you need "qualifications" in order to gamble with the people. It doesn't change anything at all. A system that is naturally corrupt isn't really going to stop being corrupt by a few restrictions that politicians can always get around.

"This makes me think... a group of people in the anarchist state, could very well convince people of their ideology, that could create a corruption on the system put in place."-Con
You can argue that about any ideology in the universe.
True that it's possible but it's possible with any ideology
Anarchy if genuinely practiced is completely uncorrupt in nature

"This was like the only question I truly wanted to be answered, so I thank you for this. The two first things could be achieved, the bold part would be very unlikely. Again, the bigger the population, the most unlikely it would be."-Con
The bigger the population the more difficult it would be, but you seriously cannot prove that it cannot work. All of your answers have been assertions





Cometflash

Con

The message of this anarchist ideology that you presented, is very beautiful and inspiring, however they are simple wishful thinking as right now, and a fantasy. I disagreed with you, about us being more alike that one may think. I can see a group with similar ideologies coming together and enrolling in such of idea, but that group will be likely shattered by outside groups.

The reason to this, is that even know we are very different, many of us share common interest with one another. However, finding people who possess the same common interests is usually not so simple.

I have read a few anarchists blogs, to try to become more familiar with the subject, for the purpose of this debate. An interesting thing one said, was; "if you ask 10 anarchists what anarchy is, you will probably get 10 different answers". So even know they all want a state of anarchy, they all seem to have their own ideology of what that state should be like. Are you representing a group, or just yourself? If you are representing a group, which group are you representing, and are you sure they share the same ideology as you present here?

PRO wrote;
"The people as a whole would generally come into agreement of the state of anarchy
I pretty much do have an idea of everyone as a whole deciding together how they want things to run. Everyone basically wants the same thing in life whether you believe it or not."

If everyone wants the same things, I wouldn't have to believe, just by reading what you just said, I would know since you imply that everyone wants the same thing.

The list.

1- you want to be well and healthy;

Yes, but not always achievable, no matter how much I want it, or how much others want to help me.

2- you want to be free;

Impossible to achieve, even if we didn't have rules, we still have to play by the laws of nature. There are restrictions all over us, even our body is one of it. You get paralyzed, and you will be in whatever spot one will like you to be. You are healthy, your body still have limits. If there are limits, you can't ever be truly free.

3- to serve no master;

In anarchy, you would have a master, the master would be all of us. You would serve every master, and every master would serve you.

4- to crawl and humiliate yourself before no man;

Agreed, but anarchy cannot guarantee such.

5- you want to have well-being for yourself, your family, and those near and dear to you. And not to be harassed and worried by the fear of to-morrow;

Agreed.

6- you want health, liberty, and well-being. Every one is like yourself in this respect;

Agreed, but again, one not achievable, and the other cannot be guaranteed.

Conclusion;

I can say I would love to have them all, and give you props, and that even know many are not achievable, it doesn't mean we should not try to see how close we could get to achieve, and maybe be proven wrong. I would love this to be as simple as you proving me wrong, and we achieving such of act, I would forfeit this whole debate if it was that simple.

*"Then why should we not all seek it together, by joint effort, helping each other in it?"

I never say we shouldn't, sign me, up, I'm up to try.

*"Why should we cheat and rob, kill and murder each other, if we all seek the same thing? Aren't you entitled to the things you want as well as the next man?"

I think there are many reasons.

*"Or is it that we can secure our health, liberty, and well-being better by fighting and slaughtering each other?"

We cannot secure any of them, either way.

*"Or because there is no other way?"

There are always other ways, I don't know if anarchism is the best way, but I'm certain that it cannot achieve liberty.

Other problems with creating a state of anarchy today.

Pretty much the entire globe has being claimed, population is to massive, and anarchist are spread out to different regions and countries.

Let's say part of the country wants to form a state, they need land to do so, and this land must be detached from government power.

The way I see, every citizen has the right of part of the land (in case a few weren't happy and would want their own state, and want to brake from the condition of the country they are currently in).

Because of the population is massive everywhere, how could one possibly decide what size of land does this group has the right to it? Pretty much every minute there is someone somewhere being born, dying or become of age that would give them the right to decide and take responsibilities for the regime.

So how does one begin such of state of anarchy with such conditions? If you want to achieve what you desire, a war wouldn't be a good idea, war traumatized people, I doubt they would have much freedom with such of images on their head.

You seem to want the communism route as well. The problem with communism is that we aren't the same, and even know you believe we want the same things, even if true, we don't all have the same energy and desire to go after it.

So you will have some people doing more than others, and you can't force them to do more since they are free not to do so.

It would work if we were all responsible, and didn't pay attention to others of how they perform. However, most people do, and they get irritated to the idea they are doing so much, and getting less than those who do little.

You may say; "no, they will get the same things", but that wouldn't be so, while one is working the other can't, or won't. Those who work more, and are more responsible, would feel that, if others did more as they should, they wouldn't have to work as hard, and could enjoy more of a free time. It is not that they don't want to work, is because they would feel those other should also be doing more.

Some jobs are also more valuable than others, and require more to be given of one to become good at it. If you could choose anything you want to do, is very likely that most would choose the easier things to do, unless such of skill came easy for them.

So your state would lack of many areas that require a lot of dedication and willpower, and you couldn't ask people to study areas that you really need to have since that would be going against what they really want. If you are deviating someone of their path, you are taking freedom away from them, and you want the opposite of that to achieve your liberty.

If you cannot sustain your state, it will eventually fall.

The anarchist state, a picture perfect to visualize, if everything goes as planned. The world doesn't work that way, you can only do your part, and you can't expect others to do theirs, specially in this reality you presented since doing so would be expecting their choices to be acting according to your ideology, and not really being who they are.

You provide a list of a few communities, but you did not list anything about them. I read a bit on each, and I cannot see why you feel those are good examples. Do you think any of them accomplish anything (or are in the path) to achieve what you state on your resolution, (If so, please point to me how is that so)?
Debate Round No. 3
Yarely

Pro

Yes this ideology is very beautiful and inspirational

When you mention the anarchists blogs where they say you'll get 10 different answers, that is true in some respects.
When Anarchy is formed, there will not be a singular Anarchic ideology that is followed exactly as it is in theory. It will most likely be a mix of different elements of the Anarchic schools of thought.

I am representing the most basic Anarchist beliefs in how a state should be run. All of them, no matter what kind of Anarchic ideology they follow, want the abolition of Capitalism and Government and want everyone to live in equality.

There are of course differences, but they are mostly not as significant as the basics of what most Anarchists want.
Green Anarchy shares a preference for for a "noble savage" type of living, living among nature and animals but in equality with the people and the abolition of Capitalism and Government.

http://www.anarchism.net...

There's Anarcho-Communism, and Mutualist Anarchy which have differences according the way goods are spread
But of course these aren't huge differences.

The only thing that you have to remember is that "Anarcho-Capitalism" is definitely not Anarchy as it completely clashes with the meaning of Anarchy. Most Anarchists agree with this

"1- you want to be well and healthy;
Yes, but not always achievable, no matter how much I want it, or how much others want to help me.

True. But also everyone wants to be well in according to mind and spirit

2- you want to be free;
Impossible to achieve, even if we didn't have rules, we still have to play by the laws of nature. There are restrictions all over us, even our body is one of it. You get paralyzed, and you will be in whatever spot one will like you to be. You are healthy, your body still have limits. If there are limits, you can't ever be truly free.

We are only discussing the most freedom that people can achieve within the limits of nature. Obviously we still have to play by the laws of nature, but that isn't the point.

3- to serve no master;
In anarchy, you would have a master, the master would be all of us. You would serve every master, and every master would serve you.

The point is not to serve a "single" master

4- to crawl and humiliate yourself before no man;
Agreed, but anarchy cannot guarantee such.

Not guaranteed, but most likely. Nothing is ever guaranteed in anything

5- you want to have well-being for yourself, your family, and those near and dear to you. And not to be harassed and worried by the fear of to-morrow;
Agreed.

:)

6- you want health, liberty, and well-being. Every one is like yourself in this respect;
Agreed, but again, one not achievable, and the other cannot be guaranteed.

Liberty, health and liberty is definitely achievable but obviously nothing is guaranteed. These things are much more likely in an Anarchy than the current system

I am glad that you are up to try it. Anarchy is a beautiful thing and a way that people can join together without oppression and competition, without authority and without prison. Without hate, without war, without property and wage slaves. Without prejudice or discrimination. With freedom and expression. With art and passion. With love and equality. With daughters and fathers mothers and sons, lovers and friends, brothers and sisters, hand in hand.
With people black, white, gay, transexual, young, old, all living together in harmony.

It won't be immediate this unity, but through work and determination it can definitely be achieved because everyone, no matter who, wants this.

"Pretty much the entire globe has being claimed, population is to massive, and anarchist are spread out to different regions and countries.
Let's say part of the country wants to form a state, they need land to do so, and this land must be detached from government power.
The way I see, every citizen has the right of part of the land (in case a few weren't happy and would want their own state, and want to brake from the condition of the country they are currently in).
Because of the population is massive everywhere, how could one possibly decide what size of land does this group has the right to it? Pretty much every minute there is someone somewhere being born, dying or become of age that would give them the right to decide and take responsibilities for the regime.

These people would pick a size of land they want and live under it. It'll start out as a small land where there is a small population. Then it can slowly grow bigger if more people want to live under this land. I'm a little confused at your question. I don't really know how to answer this

So how does one begin such of state of anarchy with such conditions? If you want to achieve what you desire, a war wouldn't be a good idea, war traumatized people, I doubt they would have much freedom with such of images on their head.
The way to achieve Anarchy would be a tough thing to figure out. There are definitely many options. It could be started out with the spreading of the land. Or of course a revolution. The type of revolution, I'm not sure how it would be done. It's a complex issue. Some Anarchists are pacifists while other Anarchists believe that violence should be used to achieve goals. So it really depends.

You provide a list of a few communities, but you did not list anything about them. I read a bit on each, and I cannot see why you feel those are good examples. Do you think any of them accomplish anything (or are in the path) to achieve what you state on your resolution, (If so, please point to me how is that so)?"
These communities that I mentioned are Anarchist regimes that are living the way that most Anarchists advocate. They are self-sufficient, independent from the government, and live in equality. I feel that these communities are definitely on the path to liberation, as they coexist in peace without the government constantly examining them, questioning them, oppressing them, discriminating them, manipulating them, enslaving them, robbing them, stalking them, killing them, deluding them and imprisioning them.

The flaws that Anarchy has can be fixed or figured out in time. Everyone in the community is going to figure out what they want to do and will share ideas.
The inconveniences in Anarchy are completely minor compared to the disgraces that the Government and Capitalism have to offer.

“Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presumes to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature. Yet, how can any one speak of it today, with every soul in a prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and maimed?
......
Anarchism, then, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government. Anarchism stands for a social order based on the free grouping of individuals for the purpose of producing real social wealth; an order that will guarantee to every human being free access to the earth and full enjoyment of the necessities of life, according to individual desires, tastes, and inclinations.

This is not a wild fancy or an aberration of the mind. It is the conclusion arrived at by hosts of intellectual men and women the world over; a conclusion resulting from the close and studious observation of the tendencies of modern society: individual liberty and economic equality, the twin forces for the birth of what is fine and true in man.”
― Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

Cometflash

Con

I like to first thank my opponent for a well and enjoyable debate.

I like to go through some of her points quickly.

PRO writes;
"These people would pick a size of land they want and live under it. It'll start out as a small land where there is a small population. Then it can slowly grow bigger if more people want to live under this land. I'm a little confused at your question. I don't really know how to answer this."


This could not work since the land would still be under government rule. You can't just declare yourself a nation, specially if you are very small.

PRO wrote;
"These communities that I mentioned are Anarchist regimes that are living the way that most Anarchists advocate. They are self-sufficient, independent from the government, and live in equality. I feel that these communities are definitely on the path to liberation, as they coexist in peace without the government constantly examining them, questioning them, oppressing them, discriminating them, manipulating them, enslaving them, robbing them, stalking them, killing them, deluding them and imprisioning them.

The flaws that Anarchy has can be fixed or figured out in time. Everyone in the community is going to figure out what they want to do and will share ideas.
The inconveniences in Anarchy are completely minor compared to the disgraces that the Government and Capitalism have to offer."


All of the communities you listed share one common thing. They are proclaimed independent, but they are still under government rule. They are all communities in a country run by a government, and because of this, they have encountered themselves in many troubles dealing with the government.

From the information I read, Freetown Christiania seems to be the most successful one at dealing with the government in order to continued to be allowed to exist.

So in short, you really didn't list any real anarchist states, since they were under government rule, and its existence depended on the government willingness to exist. If they decided on any rules that broke any national law, they would quickly had ceased to exist. So whatever they decided upon had to take those considerations into account.

Since I'm the last to go, I'll just end it here, and not take too much advantage over this, as admire my opponents intentions, and feel it be unfair to make any additional points other than the ones we already had in motion.

Thanks again Yarely, it was a pleasure debating with you. Take care.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Yarely 3 years ago
Yarely
Lol am I crazy or did RationalMadman just votebomb?
Posted by Yarely 3 years ago
Yarely
@Jarhyn
I get what you mean when you say that my resolution wasn't exactly resolved with my argument.
I lost fairly since my argument does not necessarily match with my resolution.
But Anarchy in no way implies Capitalism. Capitalism is authoritative as well as government
Anarchy is supposed to be freedom from authority

My argument would of made more sense if my resolution was "Anarchy is the only means of liberation of authority" or something along those lines..
Posted by Yarely 3 years ago
Yarely
@AlextheYounga "Anarcho-Capitalism" is not really Anarchism. Capitalism is inherently Authoritarian which conflicts with the whole idea of Anarchism. The singular similarity that they have is that they are both stateless
So call it what you want but "Anarcho-Capitalism" is definitely not Anarchism

And btw Karl Marx disagreed with the "property is theft" quote.
"Property is theft" came from Proudhon
Posted by Kenneth_Stokes 3 years ago
Kenneth_Stokes
Although I agree with Con, I am quite disappointed that he didn't raise the issue on moral stability, which is what Pro's argument -- at first -- was all about.
Posted by wuywieuiuoshdf 3 years ago
wuywieuiuoshdf
Hi buddy :

HOT SELL Product Brand is below: ==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====
,nike shoes,air jordan shoes,nike s h o x shoes,gucci shoes ,true religion jeans, ed hardy jeans,coogi jeans,affliction
jeans, Laguna Beach Jeans,ed hardy T-shirts,Coogi T-shirts,Christian Audigier T-shirts,Gucci T-shirts,Polo T-shirts,coach
handbag,gucci handbag,prada handbag,chanel handbag .
free shipping
New to Hong Kong : Winter Dress
New era cap $9
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
Nike s h o x(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $33
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $33
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18
Come back tomorrow for another Daily Dose of Style! Bookmark this page >>
give you the unexpected harvest

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com... ) =====

==== ( http://www.scnshop.com... ) =====
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by RationalMadman 3 years ago
RationalMadman
YarelyCometflashTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I am a socialist and approve of con.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 3 years ago
Jarhyn
YarelyCometflashTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G RFD: Comma usage and lack of conjugation; however I would note that I could still understand his point unambiguously in the majority of cases. Argument RFD: PRO generally fails to understand that under anarchy there is no way to resolve the conflict between liberties, and further fails to understand that anarchy implies MORE capitalism, MORE competition over power, as in a true anarchy, might makes right. Without uniform group-driven enforcement, individuals enforce their own personal wishes. Further PRO does not seem to really have a strong understanding of what anarchy even is, and is rather attempting to argue for a direct socialist democracy, and trying to call such situations "anarchy".
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 3 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
YarelyCometflashTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro did not link his case with having a government. Con rebutted successfully.
Vote Placed by AlextheYounga 3 years ago
AlextheYounga
YarelyCometflashTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm a minarchist, and I really have respect for most anarchists, but pro's argument was ridiculous. Capitalism is not striving for destructive power. And property is not theft! That's Karl Marx bull! Anarcho-capitalism would probably be one of the better form of, or lack of, government. You need to read some Murray Rothbard, sir!