The Instigator
Harbalalism
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Huadian
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Market Anarchy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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: 8/18/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,175 times Debate No: 9256
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Harbalalism

Pro

All forms of societal forms of organization is governed naturally through the natural consent of individuals in society in relation to there interactions is what governs society. This system is from the top-up not top-down, because these are interactions with the consent of individuals and how they interact with the society. Now my premise is that the state which I define as an institution which has a monopoly over a given geographical territory, is not necessary for a civilized society, for the simple reason that it does not follow the consent of individuals interacting in society, and that it is a monopoly which isolates itself from competition and market demands.
Huadian

Con

I must thank Harbalalism for starting this debate and I must admit it may become very interesting.

I believe "market anarchy" cannot exist because according to my opponent's definition, it is when there are no fixed allegiances or parties that govern over a fixed territory.

The definition of "govern" is:
to exercise continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in b : to rule without sovereign power and usually without having the authority to determine basic policy (Merriam-Webster, Govern).

From this definition, it can be inferred that every person governs partially over him or herself and that other individuals or groups that have influence on the said person also govern partially over him/her. In "market anarchy," supposedly everyone would make any economic decisions they want to and would need to consent to be governed, and could switch allegiance from and to governing parties at will. In addition, no party or organization would have geographical control over any area.

This is in essence impossible because if one organization can control the people in one area, they can also have control of the area geographically, even though "geographical control" is a completely subjective concept.

Furthermore, "states" will always exist by definition, because using my opponent's definition of state as an "institution which has a monopoly over a given geographical territory," (Harbalalism, Round 1) can always exist as long as any institution has physical control over a given territory or section of land. Even Neanderthals controlled land in their groups, although they areas may have been small, and during that time, each tribe was a total anarchy to another tribe (Durham University, Neanderthal Movement), which is essentially a more extreme version of market anarchy.

You can remove all concepts of power, including financial well-being, political hierarchy, or intelligence, but you can never remove power by physical might because that power is given through existence.

Works Cited:
"Ancient tooth provides evidence of Neanderthal movement." Durham University. 11 Feb. 2008. 18 Aug. 2009
<http://www.dur.ac.uk... >.
"govern - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary." Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster
Online. 18 Aug. 2009. 18 Aug. 2009 <http://www.merriam-webster.com... >.
Debate Round No. 1
Harbalalism

Pro

I would like to thank Huadian for joining this debate.

Huadian is claiming that market anarchy is impossible because he assumes that the individuals of the society will fall into the consent of the state with it's physical violence. but he ignores the fact that in anarchist societies there have been private agency's which have provided services of the state such as private arbitration and defense agency's. I am now going to site a article on "Anarchic Ireland" and I want Huadian to answer this question.

Was the tuatha in ancient Ireland a state under your definition if they did not have a territorial monopoly on the geographical location and did not impose violence on individuals which choose to use there competitors tuath?

I will be waiting for a response, and remember the compare the tuatha and your definition of a state.
Huadian

Con

I would like to thank Harbalalism for a swift response.

According to your article, after the Vikings invaded Ireland, the tuath led by M´┐Żel Sechnaill assassinated their leader Thorgest. In addition, he then, "led his tuath's army to victory over a Norse army attempting to reclaim the kingdom in 848" (Anarchic Ireland). This brings the question, what would prevent that very tuath, with an army, from killing the members of other tuaths and/or forcing members of other tuaths to join them? Of course, this could only happen if that tuath had significant power, however, what is stopping these tuaths from having a lot of power? As Genghis Khan demonstrated, with a good leader, one can bring together vast armies and conquer huge plots of land.

The tuaths are in essence a state. The tuath provided services such as military support (defense) and private arbitration (legal system), that are all characteristics of a state. Just because they didn't impose violence on those who joined other tuaths, doesn't mean they couldn't or wouldn't. All it takes is one leader, citing examples such as Charlemagne in Medieval France and Mohandas Gandhi in 19th century India, to greatly change human opinion and raise a powerful force. They provided the services of a state, and could control territory like a state with violence.

When groups get powerful, all it takes is one decision for them to control other weaker groups. With military power comes the ability to control territory and slowly change the opinions of the people they control. Therefore, the system like ancient Ireland used would be impractical and unsustainable in the long term. Stability is very important for any government system, and this complete free will system does not provide a good way of protecting stability, since nothing except special agencies are in place to protect the system and make sure that people follow the rules.

Works Cited:
"Anarchic Ireland Rough Draft." Polycentric Order. 30 Jan. 2009. 19 Aug. 2009
<http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com... >.
Debate Round No. 2
Harbalalism

Pro

This will be a response to Huadians's last claim and conversations I had with him on skype First off Huadian is trying to claim that the Tuatha could have become a state. The problem is that he is showing examples from statists societies and the violence committed by states. Huadian does not understand the difference between a company and a state. A company functions through voluntary exchanges in order to gain capital or to increase there inventory of capital goods. A state is a institution which gains a monopoly over a geographic territory and uses expropriation through taxation, and all of it's actions are used in the act of violence. Huadian assumes the state emerged from the free market which is inaccurate because monopoly's cannot form in a free market. The state came from the physiological manipulation and superstition of mysticism and religion. Huadian simply assumes that company's are mini-states. If so than they should be acting like states, there should be evidence of this, and they should not be acting like voluntary agency's which emerge from the market.
In conclusion Huadian does not understand the nature of the free market in relation to society and has failed to show that the state is a necessary evil.

http://mises.org...

http://www.lewrockwell.com...

http://mises.org...

http://libertariananarchy.com...

http://blackcrayon.com...

http://mises.org...

http://www.daviddfriedman.com...

http://www.daviddfriedman.com...
Huadian

Con

Huadian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Harbalalism

Pro

Harbalalism forfeited this round.
Huadian

Con

Huadian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Harbalalism

Pro

Harbalalism forfeited this round.
Huadian

Con

Huadian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Harbalalism 8 years ago
Harbalalism
Posted by Joemamaiscool 8 years ago
Joemamaiscool
I love harbalaism
Posted by Alk09 8 years ago
Alk09
Questions for Harbalalism:
how will you stop planned obsolescence within a lifespan?
How will you stop social stratification?
Why do people want to retire?
Would you rather work or be free?
Is morality economicly sustainable for a company?
Will automation destroy labor?
Questions for Huadian?
Do the other factors you mentioned affect physical violence for example financial problems potentialy sparking conflict out of scarce resources?
Isn't violence created out of scarcity of resources?
Do laws create crime?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by atheistman 8 years ago
atheistman
HarbalalismHuadianTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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