The Instigator
Thelibertarianmetalhead
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Beople
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is government necessary?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/16/2016 Category: Economics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 302 times Debate No: 85074
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Thelibertarianmetalhead

Con

I will be arguing against the proposition that government is necessary, pro will be arguing that it is necessary. These are my terms: pro starts in round one, we both argue in round 2,3,and 4, and pro gets the last word in 5, however he may not use a new argument (this is fair because I'm not posting an argument here).
Let the best debator win.
Beople

Pro

Governments are necessary. They keep order in the nation. And pass laws through voting. For example, a Monarchy would have absolute power over what is done in the nation and by the nation they rule. Governments are elected, Monarchy comes through bloodline. Without a government of any sort, can you really call a nation a nation? Chaos would come from that. Out of that chaos, people would want power. Out of those people, could none see the need to form a government? If it were to come to a point of anarchy, surely whoever restores the peace would call for a government to support all the people. What person would think government as pointless? A person who looks for trouble. Governments protect us, and stop those people who look to perform selfish crimes and put them up against the law. What alternative to a government could anybody come up with that benefits everybody involved? Without involving any democracy, otherwise your practically talking about a present-day Government.
Debate Round No. 1
Thelibertarianmetalhead

Con

Thank you pro for accepting this debate.
I am against the existence of the government, and I label myself as an Anarcho Capitalist which is defined as a system in which services are not provided by any government or state, but rather voluntarily through the market. The ideas which I will be promoting here are largely borrowed from the likes of Ludwig von Mises, Murray rothbard, Stefan molyneux, Walter block, Lysander Spooner, Hans Herman Hoppe, and David Friedman.

Anarcho-Capitalism as I define it is a system where there is no state. Instead, it is a system of private property where all services are provided voluntary through the market.

My general approach to anarcho capitalism is based off of libertarianism first and foremost. Now there are two axioms to libertarianism, two sides of the same coin, and these are the non aggression principle and property rights. The non agression is basically what it sounds like: do not initiate force, do not aggress against others. The only time force is legitimate is in self defense or defense of another. It's not very controversial, because who supports murder, assault, rape or theft? The second axiom is property rights. So let's say Person X has a cap on his head, and I snatch it off. Have I committed aggression? It depends. If it was X's hat and I just grabbed it then I am at fault, but if he stole it from me yesterday and I simply was repossessing it then I am innocent.
Libertarians when It comes to property usually borrow from the Lockian/Rothbardian/Hoppeian homesteading theory. In other words, you mix your labour with the land, you cut down trees and build a cabin, grow crops, domesticate a cow etc, and this is how you come to acquire property if it is unowned. And because you own the property, you can transfer titles. Purchase, barter, gambling, and charity are examples of legitimate title transfer.

So by now you're probably asking just what the hell this has to to with this debate about anarcho capitalism and the state.
It relates to it because there are two main characteristics that the state possesses that distinguishes it from other institutions, and that is it's ability to tax and it's ability to forcefully eliminate competition in the provision of services. It's held to a different moral standard than other people. Let's give an example: in our everyday lives, when we want to accomplish things we get together voluntarily, we raise money, we persuade, we trade, we interact in many different formats, but never with guns. Never coercively. I didn't force anybody into accepting this debate challenge, and furthermore if I had, nobody would think it morally permissible. If this is still unclear, simply replace the word "government" with mafia.Let me expand upon this further.
Let's suppose that there is a man named Stuart. Stuart thinks that his town ought to have a public park. So he goes around collecting funds to pay for the endeavor. Being the greedy capitalist pig that I am, I refuse to pay when he comes to My door. In response, he takes out a baseball bat, breaks my knee and steals my wallet. What would the general reaction be? Something along the lines of "this man should be criminally prosecuted, he committed assault with a weapon and armed robbery." , and justly so. But let's tweak this scenario a little bit. Suppose that people in my neighborhood vote for Stuart to take my money forcibly, and he does. Most people would still find this morally repugnante. Theft is theft.
But let's go a little farther. Suppose now that Stuart is a member of the republican party, and he is voted into public office. What then happens when the time comes to pay my taxes, and I refuse, and men with guns clad in costumes and badges break into my house an forcibly remove me, and lock me in a cage? Stuart is now a public servant, a selfless representative of the will of the people. People chant his name, people revere him wheras a mere change in terminology and consistency would deem him a common thief, a looter for doing virtually the same thing as in the previous examples. This is explained better when German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer talks about what he refers to as the economic means vs the political means.

Another characteristic which I mentioned which the state possesses is it's ability to outlaw competition with it. For example, if you and I want to start a software company. We do not have it intrinsically in our possession to ban competiting entrepreneurs. We may be the favored business because our customers prefer our product to that of our competitors thus limiting competition in that sense, but we cannot legally ban a group like Microsoft from entering the market to compete with us. By contrast, the state claims coercive monopoly on the provision of several services such as the law, law enforcement, currency, national defense, education, roads and in My country healthcare, to name a few. In these cases, competition is immensely limited, or sometimes outright banned. In My home country of Canada, private medical clinics are virtually outlawed. This presents some problems. First, there is the issue of aggression. The government monopoly on protection is analogous to outlawing competition in t-shirts or wrist watches. Force is being initiated against innocent people.
Another problem, this time economically speaking that when you are funded coercively through taxation and fiat currency and competition is banned, what real incentive do you have to provide a good service? In a free market system where businessmen must compete for the money of their customers, If they fail to provide a good service for a reasonable price they will go out of business because of competition. Your pay depends on your ability to satisfy customers. By contrast, In a state run system you have no real incentive because regardless of what you do you have the guns and the power To collect taxes, and if someone tries to compete with you they will be criminally prosecuted. As an example, there is a significant problem with police violence in the united states, and surprisingly in Canada as well. If there was legitimate competition in the provision of protection services, police that were abusive would e fired or punished substantially, because in a free market your reputation is very important, and if said reputation comprised of yor employees beating up black people you would lose customers fast, as people would take there business to less violent agencies.

But there are legitimate questions as to how certain things currently provided by the government could be provided through the market. Bear in mind while reading this that people who escaped from north korea where the state dictated to them what they could wear, eat, live and listen to could hardly imagine a system where those things are provided voluntarily through the market. In this round (and possibly the next because my characters are running low) I will attempt to convey how Roads, Police and national defense could be provided in a stateless society. I will be happy to answer any questions that my opponent has regarding to other things, but these appear to be the most common objections I face.

So how would roads get built without the state? Well one of the first things one must do is look at incentives. Who has the incentive to build roads? One obvious answer is car companies. Car companies could partake in the funding/maintaining of roads. Another possibility is just companies in general, because if you are a company people obviously need to be able to get to where your location is. It is also likely that there would be companies whose specific function is road/highway production. An interesting statistic is that there are upwards of 30 000 road deaths per year in the united states alone. This is often taken for granted, but consider the reaction if 30 000 people died in Subway per year. If you are a private company, your reputation is everything, and if you get a reputation of droves of people dying on your roads you wont last long as a business. Another question pertaining to this is without taxes, how would the necessary funds be raised? The answer is probably not with tolls, because tolls cause congestion. A possibility is that cars would probably have serial numbers, and before going on the road the number would be scanned, and scanned again when you leave the road, and the company would bill you each month, however this is only a possibility. I recommend that everyone check out walter block's free book "The privatization of roads and highways". Note that when I talk about roads,I am also talking about transportation in general, and this could vary depending on where one lives. For example, I live near the coast so I could see there being more water-based transport.

Now because of my incessant babbling I don't have suficient characters to talk about police and national defense, so I will next round, so my opponent can preemptively talk about the issue of private police and national defense, and ask me questions pertaining to other subjects I have not yet covered.
Best of luck!
https://mises.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
Beople

Pro

Beople forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Beople

Pro

Beople forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Thelibertarianmetalhead

Con

Thelibertarianmetalhead forfeited this round.
Beople

Pro

Beople forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Thelibertarianmetalhead

Con

Thelibertarianmetalhead forfeited this round.
Beople

Pro

Beople forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.