The Instigator
barwella
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Chimera
Con (against)
Winning
4 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 1 vote the winner is...
Chimera
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 430 times Debate No: 54902
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

barwella

Pro

I think that if people are voluntarily producing for what they deem good pay, whether that is monetary or some form of capital, the will be happier, their productivity will increase and so increase the GDP and output of the country. This could raise living standards and have a positive cyclic effect. Also, like with any form of anarchy, people will be more together and could make towns, villages and even cities friendlier and more tight knit
Chimera

Con

I accept this challenge. I will argue from the point that anarcho-capitalism will end in failure.

Opening Argument:

To begin, anarchism is fundamentally an anti-capitalist idea. Everyone from Proudhoun to Bakunin to Kropotkin were anti-capitalist. On the basis that capitalism is a system of economic hierarchy, and an anarchist society is meant to have no hierarchy. If there is hierarchy, economic or political, it isn't anarchist in the first place.

Many anarcho-capitalists cite examples from Celtic Ireland, and Viking Iceland to show that their system works. The naivety of this argument being that both of these society failed for the obvious reason that the rich aristocrats were able to buy their way into power, through the exploitation of the poor, thus creating what anarcho-capitalists were fighting in the first place, the state.

Similarly, corporations would compete against one another, until only one is left. This last corporation would then form a state to ensure their power over the people, and to maintain their control over the people's wealth.

Another problem about anarcho-capitalism is that everything, and I mean everything, would become a commodity. Poets would be reduced to the creators of sappy greeting cards, painters to mere 'visual artists', sculptors to nothing more than 'gem-cutters'. People would only be 'free' in the sense that they are free to sell their labor to whoever they want, but not have access to the freedom of not selling their labor for survival in the first place.

The environment would also be affected negatively by this system. Corporations wouldn't care about whether or not they are hurting the environment, since they make more money by ignoring the consequences of their actions.

I have to end this argument here, since I am busy and don't have time at the moment to continue this.

Good luck to my opponent, I hope we can have a great debate.
Debate Round No. 1
barwella

Pro

barwella forfeited this round.
Chimera

Con

Extend all arguments
Debate Round No. 2
barwella

Pro

barwella forfeited this round.
Chimera

Con

I hope my opponent returns. Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
barwella

Pro

barwella forfeited this round.
Chimera

Con

Extend all arguments
Debate Round No. 4
barwella

Pro

barwella forfeited this round.
Chimera

Con

Pro forfeited the match, and did not provide a counter-argument

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DarwinBulldog 2 years ago
DarwinBulldog
Pro, what's up with the purple ring/circle insignia default picture...?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
barwellaChimeraTied
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: Conduct - Con. Pro forfeited R2, 3, 4, & 5. This is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting. For this, Pro loses conduct points. S & G - Tie. Neither made any major grammatical or spelling mistakes. Arguments - Con. Not only did con successfully rebut the points raised by Pro in R1 alone, but he further introduced new arguments that remained standing unchallenged for obvious reasons. Not only did Con educate the audience on what anarcho-capitalism (AC) is but he also expanded on why AC wouldn't work. Without rebuttals or participation from his opponent, his rebuttals and arguments remain standing - therefore winning him argument points. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate.