The Instigator
SebUK
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kc1999
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Can Anarcho-Capitalism work

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...
Kc1999
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/2/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,006 times Debate No: 45088
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (2)

 

SebUK

Pro

Round one is for acceptance only , round two is for explaining your main arguments and the last round is for rebuttal
Kc1999

Con

Thanks for the chance to debate.

Good luck and have fun.


Debate Round No. 1
SebUK

Pro

What do we think of when we think of the word anarchy? fear , terror , chaos? but why is this ? most people are not educated about what anarchy really is and how it would work most people do not belive that we can exist without a government they think the idea is absurd. Many people also belive that a society without a government would fall into haos because there would be no law and no order but is that really true? if we look at what Anarcho-Capitalists want it's complete different from what other people think they want , An Anarchist society would be based on the non-agression principle 'The non-aggression principle (NAP)"also called the non-aggression axiom, the zero aggression principle (ZAP), the anti-coercion principle, or the non-initiation of force"is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are.[1] Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual"s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.' each person would buy protection there would be many protection agencies some of which would be local and some of which would be across the country the individual person can decide which one to pay into every month and than if a crime is commited that the person is affected by he can call the protection agency and demand an investigation to occur. Another problem many people have with Anarchy is the lack of regulation or actually the lack of regulations that are forced onto the company by the government . In a free Anarchist society regulations would exist and in fact companies would pay for regulations and i'm going to explain why . One way to check if a product is safe is to make a government agency do it they will decide if to allow or forbid the sale of the product , many products are regulated like that but another good approach is too let competing private firms asses the product and give a rating customers than can decide to buy or not to buy a product based on its rating , a private company would hire a certification firm so that they can evaluate their product and if their product gets a good rating or passes than the certifirers logo is added to it . Manufuctures would pay such a firm because it increases sales customers who see the logo see that the product has been through safety tests so as a result they are more likely to buy the product the shop owner also would not allow products that don't have a high rating or are dangerous to be sold in his/her shop because if they did they could loose costumers so they would pay extra to stock certified products . Competing firms work good because their goal is to be cautious but also fast , a certifier who turns out to have certified a dangerous product looses their reputation therefore increasing the chance of the manufucturer to hire a different certifier on the other hand a certifier that takes too long will also loose customers . Now compare this to a government agency that if allowed a dangerous product on the market would suffer huge consequences for the officials running it therefore such a government agency has a goal to be over cautious they are take very long and take too many tests that can be expensive they do delay products from arriving to the market if such a product is a life saving drug people die that could have been saved .
,
Kc1999

Con

Anarcho-Capitalism is an extension of anarchy that includes the privatization of major industries, but most notably security and defense. I shall now be proving to you that anarcho-capitalism is unsustainable, and will eventually crumble to the winds of time. An Anarcho-Capitalist Society is presumably an easy thing to imagine. An anarcho-capitalist society should consist of the following things:

1. Social Hierachy

In an Anarcho-Capitalist society, classes still exists. This is because under Anarcho-Capitalism, there must be skilled labor to work for the leaders of the companies, whom organize such basic services, like security and the common welfare. Therefore, for the leaders or CEOs of these companies to be profitable, they must always have wage labor to use, and therefore, a social hierachy exists.

2. No Government

Anarchy is not considered an ideology by some, but rather a way of organizing society. Therefore, under Anarcho-Capitalism, there would be no government to any actions or national law. But how do we enforce law, or rather, I should say, rules, when the institution in charge of enforcing it is abolished? An anarcho-capitalist's answer to this is easy/

3. Private Property
Anarcho-Capitalism is sometimes called "Private Property Anarchy" because it distinguishes between other forms of anarchy with it's vigorous defense of private property. Unlike many other forms of anarchy, private property is defended because of the need to provide law and enforcement, and privately funded compeititors would do so, instead of government institutions like police.

With the three defining features, we can abruptly call Anarcho-Capitalism an odd form of organizing the society. But why is it unsustainable? It is because capitalism has always co-existed with a government, and a sudden break from governments would let companies under capitalism run loose and wild. It is because under Anarcho-Capitalism, the rich will be favored and justice ignored. It is because under Anarcho-Capitalism, the greed of humanity can be fully developed and be clearly seen from the actions of anarcho-capitalists.

Firstly, companies do not compete "voluntarily and defensively", but compete "mandatorily and aggressively". We don't have to go far for examples. A conflict of interest between Microsoft and Apple has led to these two companies exploiting more workers just to outrun the other company. Even in an example, where anarchy hasn't been practiced yet, two companies can already be seen fighting each other, although not directly, to outrun the other company. This, practiced in anarcho-capitalism, would be a violent scene, much like the current Drug Phenomonom. In fact, the Drug Cartel Wars are a perfect example of how Anarcho-Capitalism would turn out. Illicit Drug Chains could be described as private owning company, and these companies compete mandatorily and aggressively. They contain social hierachy, from the drug lord to the drug dealers, and to the consumers, and they are barely touched by the actions of some governments. These drug cartels symoblizes companies under Anarcho-Capitalism, fighting violently and aggressively to gain markets.

Secondly, Anarcho-Capitalism would lead "Policing Agencies" to take it easy on the rich, while take it harsh on the poor, and there would be an ignorance of justice. As privately owned companies would set up it's own "rules and laws", as they would also be in charge. The act of "raising up a private army" would also be a common practice, and those who command these private armies literally have the free will to do anything they want, including wreak havoc, and create a new state of which the commanders of the Private Armies could roam and do anything; a totalitarian capitalist-based society is the only result of Anarcho-Capitalism.

Lastly, Anarcho-Capitalism will destroy the whole key of the capitalist system: class division. Because of governments, social inequality exist because of the taxation these government ought to do. Governments have the jobs to slash taxes on the middle and higher class because they provide the most incomes, but without a government, why does the common man still have to pay taxes? Therefore, the middle class will just keep getting richer and richer, while the proletariat would get poorer and poorer, as wages are decreasing and the mere act of corporate policing makes them spend more money.

At least in a best case scenario, we could see an anarcho-capitalist state turning into a minimalist state, as all the markets would combine and therefore there would be no more compeitition; or in a worst case scenario, a totalitarian corporate-based capitalist society. Similar to the failures of primitive anarchy, Anarcho-Capitalism is an interesting ideology to study, but in practice, inpractical.

All of this, and many more points, would prove that anarcho-capitalism will not work, and we must not follow it's lines.

Citations:
http://www.zerohedge.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://rationalwiki.org...;
Debate Round No. 2
SebUK

Pro

Rebuttal 1. Social Hierachy

' I have never denied that Social Hierarchy would exist in an Anarcho-Capitalist society 2. No Government

Right indeed there wouldn't be many rules or should i rather say all the rules that are not needed like i said in my First argument I belive (and many other minarchists/anarchists/libertarians ) that the rules that would exist would be based around the non-agression principle , How do we enforce these rules ? abuse would lead to you ending up in a prison most people already know that killing / rape / physical abuse are morally wrong if a defense agency decided one day that they accept rape and not arrest people for it it would loose thousands of customers. 1) Don't harm other people 2) respect their property 3)that part of nature that you transform and make valuable becomes yours . The violation of these principles is an attempt to live at the expense of others and cannot be allowed
3. Private Property

Right let's start of with your first big argument that Anarcho-Capitalism would cause companies to run loose and wild , Unfortunately my partner forgot to mention any examples 'the rich will be favoured and justice ignored' is all i got well first of all if a rich person steals from a middle class or a poor person (which would be weird) it is the interest of the protection agency to protect its client by demanding money from the rich person that rich person would have to pay extra for the crime he comitted and the poorer persons protection agency would benefit too. if the rich person doesn't pay back he may be put in prison for some time and than let out but than after that he will still have to pay the money back (with extra) if a rich person kills a poor person and the poor persons family reports to their protection agency and after the investigation if both protection agencies the one that protects the rich and the ones that protects the poor can't come to an agreement who is right than a third party might get involved to make their own investigation and both protection agencies would have to agree that they will belive what the independant investigators who have no agenda will say another way to to end the argument is for both protection agencies to start fighting however the independant invesgiation would be much more cost effective , the protection agency would have an interest in defending the poor . Than my partner start's talking about 'greed' which he hasn't gave examples of but rather spoke about the concept which is irrelevant in this debate. ' A conflict of interest between Microsoft and Apple has led to these two companies exploiting more workers just to outrun the other company. Even in an example, where anarchy hasn't been practiced yet, two companies can already be seen fighting each other, although not directly, to outrun the other company. This, practiced in anarcho-capitalism, would be a violent scene, much like the current Drug Phenomonom' First i would like to add that Apple and Microsoft are both giant corporations who at least in part have made it this far because they are Corporations , Corporations wouldn't exist in anarchy the Corporation is a business that has extra legals rights from the government and limited liablity , Even so it would be much harder for Big businesses to continue to be so no longer there be stupid government regulations limiting the growth of small businesses in fact corporations want more regulations so it is harder for small businesses to rise the second thing i would like to point out is that giant corporations like Apple and Microsoft 'exploit' workers in Third World countries many of which have socialist-like type of governments and growing local businesses are pretty rare. Wars are not cost efficient social cooperation is actually pretty common amongst some businesses like Macy's and JC penneys and i belive it would become even more popular in a completly free market. 'the middle class will just keep getting richer and richer, while the proletariat would get poorer and poorer, as wages are decreasing and the mere act of corporate policing makes them spend more money.' my partner has failed to back his point out with any evidence or at least a good approach a capitalist economy doesn't work that way sure Rich company owners want to exploit the workers but they cannot because another company owner who pays more his workers will eventually end up making more profit as more workers join him and the reputation of the 'exploitive company' would be ruined.
Kc1999

Con

The opponent states that "corporations" do not exist. Simply not true.

A corporation is a: company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity

Perhaps I should call them agencies or companies, because these companies and agencies earn their living from enforcing law and order; this is the core of anarcho-capitalism, and this makes it distinctive from other forms of anarchy. Nevertheless, I would now move onto my rebuttals.

1. Rules
The Opponent states that there are certain "rules" in place to keep law and order. However, agencies may disagree on these rules; an agency might call drug smuggling a "crime", while another agency might not, therefore leading to confusion about what to do. An agency might also be obliged to benefit the ones which are willing to pay more, or those that are richer, instead of those who are poorer. Also, there would be a disagreement on when it is ever correct to kill. For example, Person x of company y kills person a because of fraud. Without any authority or written law in place, or any trials organized, the punishment for each crime would differ throughout agencies, and this may cause a rift in the population. Therefore, with a muddy vision of these "rules", we are unable to define any rules. In comparison with a government-based society, where laws are decided and imposed, Anarcho-Capitalism is based on proxy laws.

2. Greed is Human Nature
Although Anarcho-Capitalism defends private property, it totally ignores the fact that greed is human nature. We have the desire for everything to be self-centered on us; in a survey by James Patterson, survey participants were asked "what they would do for $100 million". 25% of them would have abandoned their entire family, 3% would've put up their kids for adoption, and 16% would give up their American citizenship. What does this say? This shows that greed is human nature, and we want more than others. What does this mean? For example, if company x gets y dollars per day, company z would want to get 2y dollars or more per day, and would do anything to do this. Taking this model, we apply it into Anarcho-Capitalism. If company x has y laborers, company y would attempt to have 2y laborers, or make company x have 0.5y laborers; yes, that means they would kill the employees of the other companies. Anarcho-Capitalism is a Governmentless Version of the Free Market; initially a bad idea, and always a bad idea. I would also like to add that big companies could completely smaller companies by violent means, and they have done this, or by buying smaller companies.

3. Exploitation
The opponent starts talking about my Marxian Analysis of the Capitalist Mode of Production; this has always been the case. If a worker produces x value of capital, his boss would want at least 2x of the capital back, but he can't sell his capital for a high price, so he has to reduce the wages of his worker. Especially when there are no tarriffs to protect a certain product's price from dwindling down, the "boss" would have to exploit his workers even more. Although the opponent says that "bosses want to exploit workers, but they can't", workers are skilled in only one labor, and should be kept in that labor. However, if the price of that product decreases, then the skilled laborer, who is skilled in his proffession, would be completely exploited and would have no choice because his entire industry provides low paying jobs.

Under Anarcho-Capitalism, a reign of corporate terror would rule the people who advocated it; in my previous arguments I explained so. I explained that policing agencies would build up into a "private army" and become the rulers of a land, and I explained how anarchy and capitalism are simply no match for each other. I also talked abut the "Drug Cartel" phenomenom, which the opponent seems to dismiss as total bluff. I would like to extend on how Anarchy and Capitalism are no match.


You cannot simply be an anarchist and a capitalist at the same time; anarchy defends freedom and liberty for the common human being. However, the reasons for inequality, aka private property, are defended by the government, and in turn, private property funds the government. However, when taking the government away, we are totally left without any laws and rules that defend private property. Therefore, private property can easily be changed. For example, under capitalism, there are chances for stepping up and becoming rich; however, in anarchy, everyone should and must be equal. Contradicting itself, a man cannot step up without dealing with his society at large; he does not work for himself but also for the benefits of society. Therefore, a worker under Anarcho-Capitalism will still be a worker at the end of his life, while CEOs will still be CEOs, which destroys the foundations of capitalism.

Anarcho-Capitalism is filled with contradictions, and a system filled with contradictions is a system that is impratical.

Because Anarcho-Capitalism will create greed, create corporate conflict, judge people by proxy laws, contradicts itself, creates room for the corrupting of the capitalist system, and ignores the fact that greed is human nature, is why Anarcho-Capitalism cannot and will not work.

It is because of these reasons, I urge you to vote con on this debate. I would like to thank the host for hosting this debate; it has been an interesting debate and has improved my knowledge on this topic.

Citations:
http://redroom.com...
http://flag.blackened.net...
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
Hehe...trying to be clarity to this debate in voting period may be abit too late. One of the disadvantages of being pro is that opponent gets last say. If you've noticed, I've always won as con
Posted by SebUK 3 years ago
SebUK
Im not debating just making things clear
Posted by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
But just saying: if an agency is easy going and another agency is hard going, then there would be disagreements, which would lead to more complicated problems.
Posted by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
I mean like I don't mean to be rude, but we did have a debate, and it ended.
Posted by Kc1999 3 years ago
Kc1999
Dude you can't argue in the comment section
Posted by SebUK 3 years ago
SebUK
Actually most anarchists belive in property laws people would get arrested for destroying or stealing someones property
Posted by SebUK 3 years ago
SebUK
And on your last argument when you wrote about a protection agency declaring drug smuggling a crime, In anarchy victimless crimes wouldnt exist drug Abuse shouldnt be a crime like ive stated before rules would be based around protection from abuse
Posted by SebUK 3 years ago
SebUK
And why the hell did Godchooseslife vote six times against me :P
Posted by SebUK 3 years ago
SebUK
I just want to add that corporations wouldnt exist in anarchy because they are entities that bave extra give. Rights FROM the government
Posted by SebUK 3 years ago
SebUK
yep i like to reply quickly
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cheetah 3 years ago
Cheetah
SebUKKc1999Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: S and G goes to pro for his diverse use of policical terms and overall shows great uses of rhetorics. CA goes to con since he individually refuted each argument and back them with sources and showed coherent analysis. Sources goes to con.
Vote Placed by GodChoosesLife 3 years ago
GodChoosesLife
SebUKKc1999Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had few errors with spelling and grammar so Con gets points. Pro had good questions and insights, but Con seemed to have a better understanding and was able to refute well so he gets points for convincing arguments. Pro never used any sources whereas Con did, so points of reliable sources goes to Con.