The Instigator
MaxHayslip
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Spiral
Con (against)
Winning
47 Points

Global Anarchy is unsustainable

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,222 times Debate No: 3890
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (22)

 

MaxHayslip

Pro

Anarchist Morality by P. Kropotkin.
"The history of human thought recalls the swinging of a pendulum which takes centuries to swing. After a long period of slumber comes a moment of awakening. Then thought frees herself from the chains with which those interested --rulers, lawyers, clerics-- have carefully enwound her."

1) Lets say that tomorrow all states would be dissolved, but would we expropriate all land? If we dissolve the states tomorrow, there would be mass chaos, and the person with the most guns would come into power. Anarchy is nearly impossible to start when governments have already existed.

2) There would be no disaster relief (Cities would be self interested once Global Anarchy is in action) thus leaving millions of lives at the mercy of mother nature.

3) Progression happens much faster through society. Global solidarity is necessary for the preservation of a species. If we were to dissolve governments Anarchy would dissolve many trade relations thus leading to economic woes, and as history as unveiled, during times of economic troubles war is almost certain to show up.

4) Because regulations would no longer be passed, many companies would offer poor services and others would be put out of business. These would eventually halt communication permanently leading to war through miscommunication and lack of diplomacy.

This is my first debate, wish me luck!
Spiral

Con

Anarchy: theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Anarchy is organised without a government, it is close to libertarianism on the political scale. It relies on people to help each other; i.e. put together a fire department to help out, but on their own good will. It is not a chaotic mess, it is ordered, functional and theoretically feasible.
As such, the philosophical ideal of Humanism is a close match to that held within Anarchism, in particular Modern Humanism or Secular Humanism and is totally compliant within an anarchistic world view. Human ethics, morality or principles should be based on human social nature and a shared reality where we can take responsibility for our actions, rather than deferring responsibility to supernatural realms. It asserts that we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasises reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation.

Society and Anarchism

The modern secular humanist outlook has led to the application of science and technology to the enhancement of the human condition. It has had a positive effect on reducing poverty, suffering, and disease in various parts of the world, in extending longevity, on improving transportation and communication, and in making the good life possible for many. It has led to the emancipation of hundreds of millions of people from the exercise of blind faith and fears of superstition and has contributed to their education and the enrichment of their lives. Secular humanism has provided a drive for humans to solve their difficulties with intelligence and perseverance. It has allowed humans to conquer geographic and social frontiers, and to expand the range of human exploration and adventure. Secularists, consistently defend the ideal of freedom, not only freedom of conscience and belief from those ecclesiastical, political, and economic interests that seek to repress them, but genuine political liberty, democratic decision making based upon majority rule, and respect for minority rights and the rule of law. Secular humanism recognises the central role of morality in human life; indeed, ethics was developed as a branch of human knowledge long before religionists proclaimed their moral systems based upon divine authority. There is a strong philosophical tradition that maintains, that ethics is an independent field of inquiry that ethical judgments can be formulated independently of revealed religion, and that human beings can cultivate practical reason and wisdom and, by its application, achieve lives of virtue and excellence. Additionally, philosophers have emphasised the need to develop an approval for the requirements of social justice and for an individual's obligations and responsibilities toward others. Ethical conduct is, or should be, judged by critical reason, and the goal is to develop autonomous and responsible individuals, capable of making their own choices in life based upon an understanding of human behavior.

Education should be the essential method of building a humane and free society. The aims of education are multiple: the transmission of knowledge; training for occupations, and careers; and the encouragement of moral growth. Among its vital purposes should also be an attempt to develop the capacity for critical intelligence in both the individual and the community.

Economy and Anarchism

Values for a good economy:
•Self-management: Having a say in decisions that affect you.
•Equity: Fairness in who gets what.
•Efficiency: Doing the work of an economy without wasting what we value. This often refers to money, but here it refers to human effort, human lives, natural resources and the environment, and individual dignity.
•Diversity: The greatest variety of choices in work, consumption, and life.
•Solidarity: Cooperation, or unity of purpose or goals.
Participatory economics (Parecon) is made up of four main institutions to promote the above values:
1.Balanced job complexes: Jobs are balanced for desirability and empowerment. This can mean that jobs comprise some desirable and some undesirable tasks, so that everyone's job includes some high-functioning and empowering work, and everyone's job complex can include some boring and tedious work.
2.Remuneration for effort and sacrifice: You get compensated for how hard you work (defined in terms of duration, intensity, burden) and what you give up to do it -- not for property, bargaining power, or talent.
3.Self-managed council democracy: Economic decisions are made by workers' councils and consumers' councils (decision-making bodies comprising those who work in a workplace or consume in a residence) according to the self-management principle (those who are impacted by a decision have a say in that decision to the degree they're impacted by it).
4.Participatory Planning: A different economic allocation system to replace markets and command planning. Individuals and councils submit proposed consumption or production plans to those who are impacted by those plans. Those who submit those plans revise their plans if necessary based on assorted qualitative and quantitative feedback. The process iterates if necessary a handful of times until there are no more excess demands.
http://www.parecon.org...

Global aid and Anarchism

Neo idealism is a liberal constructivist position, one that regards foreign aid as an embodiment of moral vision with the prospective to transform international politics. It is essentially a set of humanitarian and egalitarian convictions, of a sense of justice and compassion, and the extension of the moral logic of the welfare state beyond national borders on the basis of the same values. Aid is a movement from domestic to international justice, based on the relation between the institutions that promote these forms of justice. Global justice, or greater international equality, is the ultimate underlying motive. Aid as the logical product of the doctrine of equality. While acknowledging that aid motives are normally mixed, neo idealists hold that moral factors can be decisive in the long run: for the origin, sustainability, and development of aid as a regime. Neo idealism claims the validity of this position to extend beyond foreign aid as a model case. Moral factors can alter the tone of international life, not only in peripheral ways, but by changing the character of the system.
Kamminga, M. (2007). Morality under anarchy: neorealism and the foreign aid regime. 109.

That my friends, is a feasible model for global anarchism.
Debate Round No. 1
MaxHayslip

Pro

I would like to start off by complementing you, Spiral, you are such an amazing debater; I am quite impressed. The bar has been raised for me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I myself would like to give the definition of Anarchy, according to American Heritage Dictionary:
(1)Absence of any form of political authority.
(2)Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You say anarchy is organized without a government, but it cannot be implemented without the consent or at least the guidance of the government (If it were to have any chance). You mention a scenario in which a fire department is put out, for their own good will, but I must argue that people will do as much as they can to do as little as possible (Yes, yes, I'm a lover of Hobbes).

The philosophical ideal of Humanism is not quite right; people are self-interested and almost always work with ulterior motives.
Humans are selfish: there may be no more widespread assumption in Western European culture. In my seminars I ask my undergraduates to complete the following clause, "Human nature is…" with as many ideas as they can. Typically about 70% of their responses refer to some form of selfishness, competition, or aggression. These students will find ample and lofty support for these intuitions. At the core of Freud's human nature was the Id, governed by the self-serving pleasure principle. The Learning theory made famous by BF Skinner starts from the assumption that the organism moves towards self-serving rewards and away from punishments. Within evolutionary psychology all human traits ultimately benefit selfish genes. In economics, it is axiomatic that humans are rational pursuers of self-interest.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe secular humanism is irrelevant, it shows that man looks for improvement in society (many times for nothing but fame or money). I believe secular humanism is nothing but advancement within society, they seem to be synonymous. Secular humanism offers neither eternal truths nor a relationship with any divine. A philosophy bereft of these beliefs leaves humanity adrift in a foggy sea of postmodern cynicism and anomie.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although those might be good values for an economy, trade cannot be completed without a government (International at least).
I would like to drive that many of your points deal with a Utopian world in which people are not driven by their greed and self interest. The theory of balanced job complexes is unwise, because it keeps people from specialization which maximizes efficiency. I would also like to state that an additional workforce would have to be put in place, possibly more than one, to ensure the greatest fairness in the areas of: Self-managed council democracy, Remuneration for effort and sacrifice, and Participatory Planning.
In resoponse to your "Global aid and Anarchism", I'd like to once again point out that humans are self-motivated and self interested beings and that if it does not affect them directly they will take no action.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In conclusion, I'd like to state that man cannot live without the government. They are the people who balance our world and keep us safe, without them we would no longer be here.
Spiral

Con

"I myself would like to give the definition..."

Definition 2 is a negative form of anarchism. Under such a system, it is most probably self fuelling and self sustainable, thus neatly meeting the requirements for your first definition and supporting my own position (anarchism is sustainable).

However I am arguing for positive anarchism, while not necessary, makes the debate more interesting, and which you direct your arguments to, so we revert to my original definition.

Anarchism does not need the consent (one could hardly imagine a case where it would) nor support of the government. Political uprising, for example, can easily destabilise a government to the point of dissolution (refer to your opening point, round 1).

"The philosophical ideal of Humanism..."

You have just committed the fallacy of argumentum ad populum (argument to the gallery/people). Mass opinion does not equate to any form of proof. If they had all made a statement regarding the positive existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, I doubt you would hold their opinion to the same veridicality.

Freud's theory you failed to mention the mediating effects of the ego on the Id and super ego. Under Freudian theory, if you want to continue arguing that point, base human impulse is controlled.

Skinner's behaviourism, while useful (phobias, addiction), does not account for the entirety of human motivation. Cognitive, social and neural psychology shows we are more complex than the mere cause and effect of behaviourism.
You argue that people will be selfish, and selfishness can not help others.

Selfishness is indeed for the self, but in no way does that preclude helping others. Community involvement is based on identification of a unique ultimate goal for each motive. For egoism, the ultimate goal is to increase one's own welfare; for altruism, it is to increase the welfare of another individual or individuals; for collectivism, to increase the welfare of a group; and for principlism, to uphold one or more moral principles. As sources of community involvement, each of these four forms of motivation has its strengths; each also has its weaknesses. Effective efforts to stimulate community involvement are from strategies that orchestrate motives so that the strengths of one motive overcome weaknesses of another. Strategies that combine appeals to either altruism or collectivism with appeals to principle are especially promising. Non profit organisations in Australia receive support from an estimated 6.3 million volunteers annually. These volunteers perform a range of activities and tasks at no cost to the organisation (this equates to over � of the population involved). Non profit organisations make an important contribution to a society through their demonstration and encouragement of collective action. As non profit organisations promote collective action it should be said that this helps create a sense of community through a group of likeminded people looking to improve social capital. Non profit organisations support communities so that people do not simply have to rely on the government for social and economic support. Donors of charitable organisations traditionally express more commitment to the cause of the organisation; they do not necessarily need to be committed to the organisation carrying out the cause. Selfishness is a boon in this regard, motivations for pro social acts is all that is required, if an individual wishes to feel good, by doing positive actions, then so be it.

Lyons, M. (2001). Third Sector: The Contribution of Nonprofit and Cooperative
Enterprises in Australia. St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin.

Sargeant, A., & Woodliffe, L. (2005). The Antecedents of Donor Commitment to
Voluntary Organisations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 16(1), 61-78.

Nichols, S. (2001). Mindreading and the Cognitive Architecture underlying Altruistic Motivation. Mind & Language 16, 425-455.

"I believe secular humanism..."

Secular Humanism relies heavily on the scientific method and has a strong basis within the ideals of existentialism, and scepticism. Scientific research is rarely read outside of those in the field itself or the scientific community as a whole. If by advancement you mean, scientific advancement, then yes, secular humanism does support such rationalist approaches. How that is a negative you have failed to argue. Nihilistic claims that there are no morals without religion is a false one, Greek philosophy had a strong tradition of moral codes before religions appropriated them. You have previously used evolutionary psychology as an example, the same field, that argues the basis of social evolution, and yes, that includes morals.

"Although those might be good values..."

Anarchists can be Capitalist. Just because a state doesn't have a central government, doesn't mean it can not possess an economy, and pure capitalism requires no governing body.
In a parecon, there are a few parallel ways to think about international relations. Optimally, the world becomes a parecon so that the gains and benefits of economics everywhere impact people everywhere similarly and as equitably as within parecons. Essentially it is a free trade system. "Free-Market Economy, economic system in which individuals, rather than government, make the majority of decisions regarding economic activities and transactions. Individuals are free to make economic decisions concerning their employment, how to use or accumulate capital, what expenditures to make, and whether to use their resources now or to save them for later consumption." "The principles underlying free-market economies are based on laissez-faire (non-intervention by government) economics." "Individuals acting in their own economic self-interest will maximize the economic situation of society as a whole, as if guided by an "invisible hand."

http://encarta.msn.com...

Short of that there are countries with their own economies. They engage in exchange. If they are both pareconish, the exchange would be planned, as it would be within economies, in light of full social costs and benefits. If one partner in trade is pareconish and the other is capitalist, many possibilities for the terms of exchange exist. One good and graphic one is that the parecon exchanges at either market rates, or at parecon rates, depending on which benefits the poorer country most. Why councils of fair control are an issue, I have no idea.

Currency: Value is not determined by what people say something is worth, nor what worth someone says something has. The government regularly says that certain goods and services have a specific value. They can say that the value of the dollar is worth a certain amount but that really means nothing. Value isn't based on what people say, but on what people are willing to pay. Value is essentially a function of supply and demand. When you compare paper money with gold; the supply of gold is far more stable than the supply of paper money. The reason is simple. The supply of paper money can fluctuate quickly and can easily be overproduced. Gold or any other metal is difficult to extract so the supply does not quickly change. It remains more stable. They can use gold to trade with other countries.

"In resoponse to your..."

Again motivation for aid does not need to preclude others even within selfish motivation. Empathy in the case of, for example, a natural disaster, adequately removes any "bystander" bias. All that is needed is a policy of global aid in respect to resources. I am in no way, suggesting some idealistic utopian society, common goals and understanding are all that is required.
Debate Round No. 2
MaxHayslip

Pro

I concede, you are superior.

I am sorry to have wasted your time.

I'd also like to tell you that I read your debate on the chicken coming before the egg and it is absolutely amazing!
Spiral

Con

It was definately a great topic, I had fun. Thanks for your time :)

Maybe consider rewording your premise and running again, there is much breadth within the idealism of anarchism, much like socialism. As a concept, positive anarchism is really just a theory, there are no real life examples to draw on.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MaxHayslip 8 years ago
MaxHayslip
You're a nice girl =)

25 Characters.
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
You know, you didn't source an entire paragraph... even if it's an accident, it's still plagiarizing. I'll tell you most professors wont take "whoops" for an answer.

I can see why you conceded now. You couldn't even argue for yourself.

And omgosh, I made a big deal out of it? Gosh, maybe because it's illegal.
Posted by MaxHayslip 8 years ago
MaxHayslip
Hahaha, whoops... Meant to cite...but knowing you, i'm about to catch *stuff* for this.

Read my other debates, I do normally cite though, I try not to plagiarize.
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
Maxhayslip in above debate: " In my seminars I ask my undergraduates to complete the following clause, "Human nature is…" with as many ideas as they can."

Now, you must have a degree, forgive me, to be teaching undergraduates at 15 ;)

Where'd you copy this from, Maxhayslip?
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
Well you seem to think you know enough about psychology to say I have self esteem issues.

Look who's got the self esteem issues :)

Get a degree first, buddy.
Posted by MaxHayslip 8 years ago
MaxHayslip
Yeah, I just didn't believe I could win... honestly, i'm a pathetic freshman policy debater... I'm not talented at all.
Posted by Paradigm_Lost 8 years ago
Paradigm_Lost
"I concede, you are superior. I am sorry to have wasted your time."

There is a fine line between admiration and self-deprecation... You've crossed that line, my friend. :)

I don't think you should have ceded defeat so easily. You were doing quite well. If you had given round three a fighting chance you might have been able to have really made your point shine.

I can't reiterate enough that extreme admiration looks like either debasement or brown-nosing. But that is just my opinion. Do what you will with it.
Posted by MaxHayslip 8 years ago
MaxHayslip
Logical-Master, It was futility that brought me to my knees. I had no chance, I can't debate this topic as well as I thought I could.

Thank you for the tip. (I didn't have any faith in my words)
Posted by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
"I would like to start off by complementing you, Spiral, you are such an amazing debater; I am quite impressed. The bar has been raised for me."

I'd leave comments like these in the comment section if I were you. Putting them in the debate only gives observers the idea that you don't have enough faith in your arguments or ability to debate for that matter.

Then again, I wouldn't have conceded either . . . .
Posted by Vi_Veri 8 years ago
Vi_Veri
Did you seriously resort to telling me I have psychological problems?

Wow.

I'm guessing you're not adding things up very well...

Nvm, guy, nvm, not if you can't reason why I would be saying such things.
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Charity 8 years ago
Charity
MaxHayslipSpiralTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Vodyanoi 8 years ago
Vodyanoi
MaxHayslipSpiralTied
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 
Vote Placed by flatwhite 8 years ago
flatwhite
MaxHayslipSpiralTied
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 
Vote Placed by JUDGE 8 years ago
JUDGE
MaxHayslipSpiralTied
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 
Vote Placed by SteamPunk 8 years ago
SteamPunk
MaxHayslipSpiralTied
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 
Vote Placed by cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
MaxHayslipSpiralTied
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 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
MaxHayslipSpiralTied
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 
Vote Placed by lisaamey 8 years ago
lisaamey
MaxHayslipSpiralTied
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 
Vote Placed by Oolon_Colluphid 8 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
MaxHayslipSpiralTied
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 
Vote Placed by bexy_kelly 8 years ago
bexy_kelly
MaxHayslipSpiralTied
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