The Instigator
Jammie
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
MonochromeEffigy
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Anarchy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
MonochromeEffigy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 432 times Debate No: 102235
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Jammie

Con

Both of our definitions of anarchy are:

'A societal system where there is no government, and people can make up their own rules.'

Please waive your first round, and then we can start. Good luck.
MonochromeEffigy

Pro

I accept the challenge to debate and I waive the first round.
Debate Round No. 1
Jammie

Con

My two main points against anarchy are thus

1. It can never be effectively realised, for two reasons:

[A] A system that implements anarchy is an oxymoron, as anarchy is against any ruling systems.

[B] People will always establish a kind of hierarchy or ruling order or anything, as they need order and security in their lives.

2. It is a bad system for people to live in.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

First off, argument 1A:

The definition of anarchy has been agreed upon by both of us as:
'A societal system where there is no government, and people can make up their own rules.'
The problem with this system is that it is a paradox. Who is going to implement the system of no systems? If you rise up against your government and declare 'Anarchy!', then you automatically have created a system, namely of anarchy. What about the people who like rules? You claim anarchy is for freedom, but where's their freedom to be ruled over?

1B:

The second reason that anarchy can never be implemented and realised is that people, no matter the situation, will always create rules and/or rulers. Why are there no anarchist countries? The answer is because nobody wants anarchist countries. People want the police to stop them being raped and murdered. People want the security of being part of a community/country full of people they can call their fellow countrymen. If they don't have this security provided to them, they will create it. Why do you feel you are being oppressed in the current system? I'm guessing for you it would be your desire to practice your sexual preferences, but is it worth it to have sexual freedom when at any minute you could be robbed, raped or killed? What's to stop people from torturing you? It's anarchy remember, there are no rules. Funnily enough, people tend to not like being tortured, so they work together and establish groups to prevent it from happening. By doing this, they are destroying anarchy.

2

It's just a bad situation for people to live in. With all their time spent on survival and defence from others, people would have no time for leisure, science, art, music, relationships etc. Almost everything that defines the human race as human comes from having enough spare time to do cool things like putting a man on the moon and getting him back again. And debating! The only reason you are typing on a computer and debating me is because rules were established to stop people stealing your computer. A computer that would have never have been invented if people didn't have free time. The reason we have all this free time is because we aren't constantly fighting each other, we have rules to stop that. Even animals can see the sense in rules. A pride of lions can catch lots of food because they work together. If a lion goes rogue and tries to eat another lion, they will kill him, as it is the most effective strategy possible to work together.
MonochromeEffigy

Pro

1A:
‘Who is going to implement the system of no systems?’ The only way an anarchist society could be implemented is by the people deciding they want it to be implemented. At the very least the vast majority of the population would have to want an anarchist society. Otherwise, as you say, it would be impossible to implement.
‘What about the people who like rules?’ I’ve never met someone who doesn't. The problem is that everyone likes different rules. Anarchism addresses this problem by allowing everyone to make their own rules.
‘…where's their freedom to be ruled over?’ You claim a system of anarchy is an oxymoron, but here you say ‘freedom to be ruled’ as if that's not? No one wants to be ruled for the sake of being ruled. People want a government because of what they think it will do for them. Remember that, as I’ll come back to it in a moment.
1B:
‘…people, no matter the situation, will always create rules and/or rulers.’ There’s no reason people shouldn't create rules in an anarchist system. Everyone can and should create their own rules. Rulers are the problem. As I stated, anarchy will only work if almost everyone wants it. If almost everyone is trying to create an anarchist society, any attempt to establish oneself or someone else as a ruler would be nullified by the general populace refusing to obey said person. A ruler has to have subjects. If everyone refuses to be a subject, there will be no ruler.
‘…nobody wants anarchist countries.’ This is obviously not true, since there are anarchists.
‘Why do you feel you are being oppressed in the current system? I'm guessing for you it would be your desire to practice your sexual preferences,’ That’s definitely part of it, but it’s more than that. The way I see it, everyone is oppressed in the current system. There are laws to govern how fast you can drive your car and how much you have to pay your employees. Wouldn't any sensible person think that's a bit too much?
As for the rest of this argument, you were spot on when you said people want security. Unfortunately, most people don’t realize that security doesn't have to mean the sacrifice of freedom. Acts of theft, rape and murder wouldn't be issues if the intended victims could defend themselves. Humans are an intelligent species. It wouldn't be so difficult to provide security for ourselves without a government.
2:
It seems you have a misconception about anarchy. You assume that, because there would be no government, there would be no organization at all. That's simply not the case. People would still organize themselves into groups that would be just as effective as what we have now. The only difference would be that the groups wouldn’t have leaders. Everyone would be equal.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Now I'm going to expound upon what I said above: people want a government because of what they think it will do for them. Based on my observations, the government rarely delivers. Why, then, do the people put up with the government? Because they’re afraid of what the world would look like without it. People are instinctively afraid of change. That's why it takes so long to get anything major accomplished. If you disagree, tell me what the government does for society that society couldn't do for itself.
Debate Round No. 2
Jammie

Con

'Anarchism addresses this problem by allowing everyone to make their own rules.'

But other people won't abide by your rules, so if they do something against your rules, and you imprison them or discipline them in some way, then you are not respecting their right to not be ruled over. But if you don't discipline them, you don't have rules.

'You claim a system of anarchy is an oxymoron, but here you say "freedom to be ruled" as if that's not?'

I thought you were for freedom. It seems like you are, but only what you class as freedom. So what if I want to be ruled over? Someone might. Who are you to dismiss their lifestyle choice and then tell them they can't live it? Obviously you are not for freedom.
for freedom.

'Everyone can and should create their own rules. Rulers are the problem.'

What? Everyone should create rules? I thought anarchy was about liberation and freedom from oppression. How can that be when you are advocating rules? If there are no rulers, how can a decision be made on anything? With millions of voices in the crowd no decisions can be made and no rules can be made,as everyone wants different things.

' There are laws to govern how fast you can drive your car and how much you have to pay your employees. Wouldn't any sensible person think that's a bit too much?'

Um, no I actually like crossing the street knowing that I can without being hit at 150mph. The reason there are speeding laws is so that people don't die because of high speed lunatics. And your point about minimum wage is pathetic. I thought you hated oppression? Before the implementation of minimum wage (at least in Britain) factories were basically sweatshops with bosses earning huge slices of the revenue while employees starved to death because they were so poor. This regulation helps protect workers from exploitation. I don't think it is too much for people to demand a certain level of pay, as otherwise the workers at the bottom of society would be starving.

'Acts of theft, rape and murder wouldn't be issues if the intended victims could defend themselves.'

No, they wouldn't, but my point is they can't. That's why they are called victims. Many people in society would be helpless to a rape or robbery, such as the old of age, children, and people with disabilities. They can't protect themselves, and I for one are proud to live in a nation (UK, if you haven't guessed already) where we have a police force to protect the vulnerable.

'It wouldn't be so difficult to provide security for ourselves without a government.'

Please explain to me how this would work. Security means force, and force means weapons. Weapons give power, and there you have a government, namely the people who have the weapons. I call them the government because they have power over the unarmed people. For security you also need some kind of prison and rules. Who is going to enforce those rules if not the government?

' People would still organize themselves into groups that would be just as effective as what we have now. The only difference would be that the groups wouldn"t have leaders. Everyone would be equal.'

Groups need leaders. Leaders need groups. A group needs a leader to reward hard work, to punish treachery and misconduct, and to make decisions when the vote is split. Again, you sound more and more like you are not advocating anarchy, but rather Marxist communism. Please explain how your views are different.

'People are instinctively afraid of change. That's why it takes so long to get anything major accomplished'

Well if you think it takes a long time now, imagine if everybody had a say in EVERY decision that needed to be made! It is simply not feasible. Please tell me a system where everybody has a say in every decision (if they didn't there would be leaders making decisions, and you are against that), and it is still effective in getting stuff done. I'm all ears.

'If you disagree, tell me what the government does for society that society couldn't do for itself.'

The government is part of society, but whatever. I'm guessing you mean society minus government. Well, they can establish rules. You would say 'Well, society can do that'. Yes, and that's government! The only way rules can be made is if a limited number of people make them. Otherwise nobody would decide on the same rules. So the only alternative to this is having a select number of people make the rules. Well, this is government.
MonochromeEffigy

Pro

‘But other people won't abide by your rules,’ That's the point. Everyone makes their own rules, but no one else has to abide by them. If you think about it, people already make their own rules, we just don’t usually think of it that way. We usually call it a moral code. Most people do, unfortunately, have trouble with the idea of not assuming that everyone has the same moral code that they do. We assume that because we’ve deemed something against the rules for our self, that everyone else has reached the same conclusion, so we expect them to abide by it. The fact of the matter is, since everyone’s making their own rules, that one can only enforce one’s rules on oneself – unless, of course, one’s rules say otherwise.
‘So what if I want to be ruled over? Someone might.’ Once again, no one wants to be ruled for the sake of being ruled. It goes against out natural instinct. So the only reason someone might want to be ruled over is if they think that they’ll get something out of it. At that point, you could question whether that person is truly being ruled over, or if they’ve developed a mutually beneficial relationship with someone who has the desire to enforce their own rules on someone else.
‘Everyone should create rules?’ That is not what I said. I said that everyone should create their own rules. Everyone is free to create rules, but the rules only apply to the one who created them.
‘I thought anarchy was about liberation and freedom from oppression. How can that be when you are advocating rules?’ Is freedom not, essentially, freedom from having to follow anyone else's rules? Even the free follow their own rules.
‘If there are no rulers, how can a decision be made on anything? With millions of voices in the crowd no decisions can be made and no rules can be made,as everyone wants different things.’ and ‘Please tell me a system where everybody has a say in every decision (if they didn't there would be leaders making decisions, and you are against that), and it is still effective in getting stuff done.’ You’re still thinking in terms of government. What you seem to be implying here is a form of government where the people are the government – otherwise known as a democracy. In an anarchist society there are no collective decisions to be made, as that would be government.
‘The reason there are speeding laws is so that people don't die because of high speed lunatics.’ Perhaps people would need to be a bit more careful when it comes to vehicles. I, for one, believe that human beings are intelligent creatures, so we ought to be able to figure this out. In the case of those who can’t figure it out, well, that’s called natural selection.
‘I don't think it is too much for people to demand a certain level of pay, as otherwise the workers at the bottom of society would be starving.’ The people can demand to be paid whatever they want, as long as the government stays out of it. It comes down to the same thing as the speed limit. People are intelligent. We should be aware that most places that hire employees couldn't function without them. Therefore, if the wages are too low, and all the prospective employees turn down the job, the owner of the establishment will either raise wages or go out of business.
‘Many people in society would be helpless to a rape or robbery, such as the old of age, children, and people with disabilities.’ There will always be people who will step in to defend those who can’t defend themselves. It’s a side effect of humanity, and no one can completely stop it, even if for some reason they wanted to.
‘Weapons give power, and there you have a government, namely the people who have the weapons.’ If everyone has access to the weapons, that fixes the problem. That way anyone who wants a weapon can get one, but no one is forced to have one if they don't want one. The people would be the ‘military’ if you can really call it that. If anyone tried to invade the society (which is not technically a country, since the definition of country says that a country must have a government) and take over as leader, the people (who would have to want an anarchist society in order to establish one to begin with) would defend the society from the threatening party.
‘For security you also need some kind of prison and rules. Who is going to enforce those rules if not the government?’ As I said, there would be rules, just not the same rules for everyone. As for enforcing them, the people would enforce their own rules on themselves. I disagree with your statement about the necessity of prison. Prison would not be necessary if the people who would want to commit the acts which are now called ‘crimes’ were aware that their intended victim may very well be armed, and would probably not hesitate to cause them serious damage.
‘Again, you sound more and more like you are not advocating anarchy, but rather Marxist communism. Please explain how your views are different.’ The basic idea is similar, but the means to getting there are different. Marxist communism is supposed to use the government to establish a society in which the government is no longer necessary, then abolish the government, from what I understand. Anarchy is supposed to abolish the government so that a society without government can be established. Anarchy seems to be a more direct route, to me.
‘Otherwise nobody would decide on the same rules.’ That's exactly the point! Diversity is a wonderful thing. Think of how boring it would be if everyone was the same in everything. Why then should we all have to follow the same rules?
Debate Round No. 3
Jammie

Con

'That's the point. Everyone makes their own rules, but no one else has to abide by them.'

How does that work! Please explain to me how that works, give me an example, anything, because it doesn't make sense. If one of my rules is to not rob anyone, and someone robs me, what then? His rules could be 'you can rob anyone' What would happen then? If I say 'Hey, you broke my rule! I'm going to beat you up in revenge', then you aren't honouring a rule they can make saying 'It's ok to steal stuff'. And anyway, if you can only make rules for yourself, how are there any rules? if nobody has to follow your rules, that's just the same as having no rules.

'Once again, no one wants to be ruled for the sake of being ruled. It goes against out natural instinct.'

I would say having sex with a corpse goes against our natural instinct as well. You seem to disregard people's views just because you don't like them.

' Everyone is free to create rules, but the rules only apply to the one who created them.'

WELL HOW ARE THEY RULES THEN IF THEY ONLY APPLY TO YOURSELF?

'In an anarchist society there are no collective decisions to be made, as that would be government.'

How can that be true when you said this:

' People would still organize themselves into groups that would be just as effective as what we have now.'

How could a group be just as effective as they are now if everybody pitched in, no decisions could be made as one person would want one thing while the other wouldn't. There would be nobody to say 'This is the best decision and we're sticking with it' If there are no collective decisions to be made then how would the anarchist society be anywhere near as effective as what we have now?

'In the case of those who can"t figure it out, well, that"s called natural selection.'

What do you mean natural selection? If someone is speeding and kills me with their car, because there are no rules, that doesn't mean he is unable to breed. Please expand on this point.

' Therefore, if the wages are too low, and all the prospective employees turn down the job, the owner of the establishment will either raise wages or go out of business.'

That doesn't work if it's the only job available to you, and you can't turn down the job if you are starving and NEED money. The government is needed so that factories don't become slaving institutions again.

'There will always be people who will step in to defend those who can"t defend themselves. '

No, there won't. People are selfish. If people would always step in to help people who needed help, why is there a police force? Many times on the street people don't give to the homeless etc, so how can they be relied upon to protect others?

' Prison would not be necessary if the people who would want to commit the acts which are now called "crimes" were aware that their intended victim may very well be armed, and would probably not hesitate to cause them serious damage.'

???

In many countries people are armed, but crimes still happen. Murders, robberies etc. So your statement above is objectively untrue, as in the US robberies happen all the time, and people are armed.

'Why then should we all have to follow the same rules?'

How could rules effectively be enforced if everyone made their own rules up. Answer me that question.
MonochromeEffigy

Pro


‘Please explain to me how that works, give me an example, anything, because it doesn't make sense.’ To keep things simple, I’ll try to explain using your example. You have your rule that says you can’t steal things, but you’ve just been robbed by someone who has a rule that says they can steal things. You should realize, then, that they don’t follow the same rules as you when it comes to stealing. They don’t have to. If you choose to beat them up because they broke your rule, that implies that you have another rule that says you can enforce your rules on other people. You’re correct that you would not be honoring their rule by doing so, but you don't have to honor their rule, just as they don't have to honor your rule that says you can beat them up because they stole from you. In fact, the majority of people would not honor your rule about enforcing your rules, because they wouldn't want to stand still and let you beat them up.

‘…if you can only make rules for yourself, how are there any rules? if nobody has to follow your rules, that's just the same as having no rules.’ and ‘WELL HOW ARE THEY RULES THEN IF THEY ONLY APPLY TO YOURSELF?’ The definition of ‘rule’ is ‘One of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.’ Rules, therefore, do not have to apply to more than one person. As a matter of fact, there are lots of rules that apply to exactly one person. Think about the rules parents of an only child make up for their child to follow. There’s only one person who has to follow those rules. For a (rather ridiculous) example of how things would work in an anarchist society, imagine I make a rule for myself saying that I can’t wear blue on Wednesdays. To make things even more interesting, imagine that I make having to clean the attic the consequence for not following that rule. Now I’ll probably try to follow my rule, because if I selected cleaning the attic as a punishment, I probably don’t find it pleasant. Everyone else can wear blue on Wednesday if they like, because my rule doesn’t affect them, but that’s not the same as having no rules, because my rule still applies to myself, and is therefore a rule.

‘I would say having sex with a corpse goes against our natural instinct as well. You seem to disregard people's views just because you don't like them.’ Maybe I should expand my statement, then. No one does anything just for the sake of doing it. There is a motive behind every action. That motive may vary, but it will always be present. Most, if not all, motives are completely self-centered, even if the corresponding action doesn't seem to be. You said it yourself: ‘People are selfish.’ I have a motive for wanting to have sex with a corpse (namely, pleasure, the same reason anyone wants to have sex with anyone or anything, aside from reproduction), and those who want to be ruled have motives for wanting to be ruled (though I can’t say what those motives are, since I don't inhabit their brains). (And just for the record, I find it perfectly natural to have sex with a corpse).

‘If there are no collective decisions to be made then how would the anarchist society be anywhere near as effective as what we have now?’ When I said collective decisions, I meant decisions that affect the whole of society. As for the groups, they would ideally be temporary, and they would be formed for a specific purpose, so they wouldn't really need to make group decisions.

‘What do you mean natural selection? If someone is speeding and kills me with their car, because there are no rules, that doesn't mean he is unable to breed. Please expand on this point.’ If someone is driving a car faster than they’re capable of safely driving it, they will most likely end up dead. Then they will be unable to breed. The rest of the population (those who have common sense) will stay away from the road until the situation sorts itself out.

‘That doesn't work if it's the only job available to you, and you can't turn down the job if you are starving and NEED money.’ But you said earlier ‘factories were basically sweatshops with bosses earning huge slices of the revenue while employees starved to death because they were so poor.’ So it looks like it wouldn't matter if they turned down the job. Still, I predict that wages would go up in an anarchist society. With no government regulations on businesses, people would be more likely to start their own businesses instead of working at an existing establishment. The only way that business owners could get employees would be to offer them higher wages.

‘If people would always step in to help people who needed help, why is there a police force?’ To enforce the rules that the government makes. I’m not saying that the people on the police force are bad, because many of them are probably the same people who would defend those who can’t defend themselves. Why else would they join the police force to begin with? I don’t think it’s the exceptional pay, or the outstanding respect from the general public, so they must have some other motivation.

‘…in the US robberies happen all the time, and people are armed.’ Sure they’re armed. With a phone, on which to call the police. The majority of people here don’t carry a weapon, and those who do don’t necessarily know how to use it effectively. At that point they’d be better off unarmed, as their weapon could easily be used against them. If it was essential for people to know how to defend themselves, they would either learn or die. It’s another instance of natural selection.

‘How could rules effectively be enforced if everyone made their own rules up. Answer me that question.’ Everyone would enforce their rules on their own self. There’s even a punishment for not following your own rules: guilt. I’ve never met someone who likes to feel guilty, but even if there is someone, there are probably people who enjoy the current system of punishment, so the rules would be just as effectively enforced as they are now.
Debate Round No. 4
Jammie

Con

'Think about the rules parents of an only child make up for their child to follow.'

Yet that is different, as a rule is being imposed on somebody, namely the child. Again I ask you, if nobody has to follow anyone else's rules, then how are there rules? You say this:

' ...because my rule doesn"t affect them, but that"s not the same as having no rules, because my rule still applies to myself, and is therefore a rule.'

You have stated that the definition of 'rule' is: '"One of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere."
This is obviously intended for more than one person. If I had a rule I wanted to follow, e.g. blue on Wednesdays, that shouldn't be regarded as a 'rule' when debating anarchy, as we are talking about rules in a societal sense, and not a personal sense.

'As for the groups, they would ideally be temporary, and they would be formed for a specific purpose, so they wouldn't really need to make group decisions.'

You still haven't addressed my point about the effectiveness of an anarchist society vs the society we have now.
You say above that groups would be temporary, yet there are a plethora of requirements for a society to have that would have to be permanently overseen and managed, for example food production, water supply, infrastructure, security, disease prevention.

' If someone is driving a car faster than they"re capable of safely driving it, they will most likely end up dead. Then they will be unable to breed. The rest of the population (those who have common sense) will stay away from the road until the situation sorts itself out.'

In the example of a crime that needs rules so that people are safe, I used speeding off the top off my head. You seem to think that natural selection will weed out the criminals, but this is obviously untrue, as many crimes can come at no risk or danger to the criminal. If then, the criminal can come to no harm when performing certain crimes (you will most likely mention the victims being armed, I will address this next), then how can natural selection reduce the number of criminals?

' The majority of people here don"t carry a weapon, and those who do don"t necessarily know how to use it effectively. At that point they"d be better off unarmed, as their weapon could easily be used against them.'

You seem to think that a gun is an incredibly complex machine to use. It's not, and i disagree with your statement that the people with guns are better off unarmed, because they honestly are not. If you were going to rob a house in America, you would almost certainly take a gun, so why would they use your gun against you? The robbers are bringing a gun anyway, so you might as well have one as well. You mention that they can just call the police, but a gun is used in those situations where if you wait for the police to arrive you would be dead by the time they get there.

'With no government regulations on businesses, people would be more likely to start their own businesses instead of working at an existing establishment. The only way that business owners could get employees would be to offer them higher wages.'

So how would there be any employees? And in Victorian England, there were very little regulations on business, yet the horrific scenarios I have described above still occurred.

'Everyone would enforce their rules on their own self. There"s even a punishment for not following your own rules: guilt. I"ve never met someone who likes to feel guilty, but even if there is someone, there are probably people who enjoy the current system of punishment, so the rules would be just as effectively enforced as they are now.'

So we come to the end of our debate, and my final point is one that is pivotal to the existence of anarchy itself. My question to you is WHY would people enforce rules on themselves? They wouldn't, and as you are all about unlimited freedom, neither would you. Why can't I wear blue on Wednesdays, why can't I drive my car as fast as I want, and why can't I rob that rich disabled persons house? In your society, I could. That would bring out the worst in human, the most disgusting and vile side of people. The only reason they would create rules for themselves is if they had morals. Morals would only be present in a society with rules, however, as these morals would be encouraged by the general populous to keep peace and security. The only reason you think it is wrong to rob the disabled is because you live in a society that says you can't. Humans are animals, and if anarchy was in place mankind would be no different than apes.
MonochromeEffigy

Pro


‘…if nobody has to follow anyone else's rules, then how are there rules?’ and ‘You have stated that the definition of 'rule' is: "One of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere." This is obviously intended for more than one person.’ Intended or not, if the definition can be applied correctly to the thing that I wish to call a rule, it is technically a rule. ‘One of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.’ Any rule that I wish to impose on myself is one of a set of principles (namely the set of all the rules I wish to impose on myself, which are otherwise known as ‘morals’ or ‘principles’) governing conduct (it tells me what I can or cannot do) within a particular sphere (a sphere that happens to only include one person: myself). So then, there are rules by the definition of ‘rule’ even if nobody has to follow anyone else’s rules.

‘If I had a rule I wanted to follow, e.g. blue on Wednesdays, that shouldn't be regarded as a 'rule' when debating anarchy, as we are talking about rules in a societal sense, and not a personal sense.’ There would be no ‘rules in a societal sense’. If everyone can make up their own rules, as is stated in our agreed upon definition of anarchy, there can be no societal rules, as everyone's rules would contradict one another. Thus, the only rules that would exist to be talked about in relation to anarchy are personal rules.

‘You still haven't addressed my point about the effectiveness of an anarchist society vs the society we have now.’ Think about the things that are accomplished under the current system. They can be classified in one of two groups: things that the government accomplishes, and things that various people or groups of people accomplish. The things that the government accomplishes are things that tell the people what they can and can’t do and things that further the power of the government. Anarchy is against those things. The things that people accomplish, are everything that makes society effective to begin with. The two reasons people or groups of people fail to accomplish things are lack of motivation and other people's interference, the government being the number one interferer. It follows that without the government people would accomplish more, and therefore be more effective.

Your examples of things that society needs management for were ‘food production, water supply, infrastructure, security, disease prevention’. Food production and water supply could be managed by each individual in that industry, as opposed to groups, infrastructure and disease prevention could be managed by having a group for each specific project, and we have already discussed security. Any other examples could be dealt with similarly.

‘If then, the criminal can come to no harm when performing certain crimes (you will most likely mention the victims being armed, I will address this next), then how can natural selection reduce the number of criminals?’ Those who perform ‘wrong’ acts would likely be ostracized by society, if the majority of society does, indeed, perceive their actions as ‘wrong’. They would then only be able to reproduce with other ostracized individuals, as everyone else would consider it undesirable, at least, to reproduce with them. This would separate humanity into two groups, and the society of the ostracized would most likely collapse due to dysfunctionality. If, on the other hand, society continues to allow people who commit the acts currently called ‘crimes’ to reproduce with the general populace, they must not be so appalled at the acts as they claim.

‘You seem to think that a gun is an incredibly complex machine to use.’ I know very well how easy it is to use a gun. I own a gun, and I have had reason to use it. I said that most people can’t use a gun effectively. For one thing, most people can’t hit their target, and while it makes for a highly amusing spectacle, it doesn't get them out of whatever trouble they’re in. There's also this idea in some people’s minds that they're incapable of shooting another person. They're not physically incapable, but they’ve rendered themselves mentally incapable. Where I live (meaning this particular area of the city), most people refer to that type of person as an easy target. Those of us who don’t, refer to them as stupid. I don’t see any particular reason that I should hurt them, as they do make fairly good distractions for those who are looking to hurt someone, but I take no issue with someone else who hurts them. Humanity could do with a lot less stupidity anyway.

‘So how would there be any employees?’ There would be employees because a lot of people would rather avoid the hassle of managing their own business. As long as employers offer wages high enough to support their employees, people will take a job that pays a little less than their own business would in order to avoid spending time managing a business.

‘…in Victorian England, there were very little regulations on business, yet the horrific scenarios I have described above still occurred.’ I’d say the blame for that rests on the people who allowed themselves to be taken advantage of in that way. Anarchy is built on the ideal of freedom, so the people in an anarchist society wouldn't stand for that kind of oppression any more than they would stand for governmental oppression.

‘My question to you is WHY would people enforce rules on themselves?’ They would enforce rules on themselves because they can’t help it. Morality simply cannot be completely destroyed. I’ve tried it, and it doesn't work. Even if one manages to destroy the moral objection to shooting someone in the head using the justification that they said something one didn't like, then one is faced with rationality, which says that it doesn't make sense to shoot someone in the head for a reason like that. If you look closely, that’s really just another layer of morality hiding behind rational thought.

‘Why can't I wear blue on Wednesdays, why can't I drive my car as fast as I want, and why can't I rob that rich disabled persons house?’ There’s no real reason you can’t, but there are some things you shouldn't do if you don’t want to die, such as driving your car as fast as you want or setting off bombs in your back yard.

‘That would bring out the worst in human, the most disgusting and vile side of people.’ and ‘Morals would only be present in a society with rules, however, as these morals would be encouraged by the general populous to keep peace and security.’ If everyone is following their own rules, they wouldn’t be the worst, but rather the best. Right and wrong are subjective, so the fairest way to deal with them is to allow everyone to define them however they like. It’s better to limit society's influence over morals as much as possible and allow individuals to decide what morality is for themselves.

‘The only reason you think it is wrong to rob the disabled is because you live in a society that says you can't.’ There's a flaw in that statement: I don't think it's wrong to rob the disabled. The reasons I don't rob people are as follows: a) I’m pretty much content, as far as things go b) I’d rather not go to jail c) I just can't be bothered with planning a robbery, since I have better things to do with my time.

‘Humans are animals, and if anarchy was in place mankind would be no different than apes.’ The only huge difference between humans and apes now is that of intelligence. Apes do, in fact, have some form of ‘government’ for their ‘society’. It is only so because apes lack higher thinking capabilities. They're ruled by instinct only, so a ruling figure has no real function as far as prohibiting the group’s freedom, since apes don’t comprehend morality. Humans do possess higher thinking capabilities, and are therefore capable of weighing their own decisions against their perception of morality, with no help from a government.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by GrimlyF 8 months ago
GrimlyF
The business of government is not oppression but suppression.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Coveny 8 months ago
Coveny
JammieMonochromeEffigyTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: In R1 Con agrees to the definition that anarchy as "A societal system where there is no government, and people can make up their own rules." and then spends most of the debate trying to prove that it's not possible to make rules without leaders, it's not possible for people to have rules without government, system, etc. He accepted the definition and then argued against it. This shows poor conduct to me. Neither side had any sources to support their opinions. Pro laid out how anarchy works with rules created by the people without the need for leaders and gov. Indicating this is a self regulating society in many ways. (defense, taking care of weak, speed limits, etc) While Con only keeps repeating that it's not possible without showing how it's not possible. It's clear that Con doesn't understand the fundamentals of how Anarchy is structured. I don't agree with anarchy's viability, but Pro has the more convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 8 months ago
dsjpk5
JammieMonochromeEffigyTied
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:30