The Instigator
TheSolution
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points

Can Anarchy truly exist?

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 3 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 794 times Debate No: 28145
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

TheSolution

Con

I believe Anarchy can not truly exist solely because there will always be some sort of government formed just through a person siding with another person based on ideas, this would usually lead to a chain reaction of a certain idea which people would bind to. If everyone believes in Anarchy then wouldn't that make it a government since these people share the same idea and purpose or would that make it a democracy?
socialpinko

Pro

Con's first mistake is the faulty presupposition on Con's part regarding what a government is. He seems to take it simply to be shared purpose among individuals. This definition is faulty though in that it leads to absurd conclusions. For instance, that would make every church, corporation, community organization, homeowners association, schools, university, etc. a government. A more plausible definition would be along the lines of an institution holding a coercive monopoly on the proper use of force (law) over a geographical region. Governments also tend to hold monopolies over other services like roads while also incorporating taxation of their subjects.


===Pro Case===


The idea of a paradigm shift is not just peculiar to science. One can also historically see instances where entire political paradigms are introduced and others abandoned. This happened in the eighteenth century in the industrial world, shifting from monarchy to democracy; in the twentieth century in Russia, shifting from aristocracy to communism; and in the developed world during recent centuries, moving from theologically dominated politics to secular governments. Political programs aren't static. Beliefs, attitudes, preferences, and actions always tend to change. Therefore it's not implausible to think that the dominant "political" program of some future state couldn't be statelessness.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSolution

Con

TheSolution forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Pro

Extend arguments and refutation.
Debate Round No. 2
TheSolution

Con

TheSolution forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Pro

Extend. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
k.
Posted by YYW 4 years ago
YYW
It seems to me that there is a much simpler way to assert that anarchy can exist.

Anarchy is negatively defined in that it is, simply, the absence of governing authority. Wether you believe this is a desirable state or not depends on your conception of human nature, but to the extent that man finds himself in a state of perfect liberty and equality, something perhaps akin to the Lockean state of nature, where he is subject to no law higher than natural law (if such a thing as natural law exists) then he is in a state of anarchy. He is in a state of anarchy not because of the presence of freedom, because freedom only exists within the context of laws in civil society. Liberty is something greater, in that liberty entails the absence of commonly held political authority among individuals. In such an absence of a commonly held authority, there is surely anarchy.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
TheSolutionsocialpinkoTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by Chicken 4 years ago
Chicken
TheSolutionsocialpinkoTied
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: FF
Vote Placed by emj32 4 years ago
emj32
TheSolutionsocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF