The Instigator
FREEDO
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar_Rahl
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Minarchy(Pro) vs. Anarchy(Con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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...
Ragnar_Rahl
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,799 times Debate No: 11205
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (3)

 

FREEDO

Con

In this debate I will be defending the stance that Free-Market Anarchy is generally better than Minarchy and my opponent, if he accepts, will be arguing the otherwise.

"Better", for this debate, will be defined as which would cause the most happiness, order, economic efficiency and over-all prosperity.

The definitions of Free-Market Anarchism and Minarchy will not be confined to independent sources, rather how both I and my opponent describe our own systems to be within this debate.

The debating will begin in the second round. I thank Ragnar ahead of time.
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

Second round it shall then.
Debate Round No. 1
FREEDO

Con

Free-Market Anarchism can most easily be explained, at it's most basic level, as all individual properties behaving entirely as their own independent nations, with the owner as it's ruler. The ruler, who also, has entirely free association with all other individuals as far as his own ability.

The state, being the opposite of this, seeks to use coercive force to thwart the will of individuals to the submitting of it's own. I will explain why this is neither necessary nor preferable.

What seems to me as being the most contrasting difference between our two systems is that mine would allow competition between private defense agencies and yours would not, correct me if I am wrong. So, perhaps, on this lies the fundamental debate.

As I see it, your government is a business which uses force to extinguish all other competition, so to have a monopoly on the product, which is defense.

What is wrong with this?

It takes under assumption that whoever is in control of this defense system can do a better job than any other. Is this judge, or whoever it is, endowed with some godly powers of acting in the best interest of the consumer?

As I would think my opponent will agree; the free-market has proven itself both in practice and in theory to be the only thing which can judge consumer needs with maximum efficiency. Neither a lone individual nor a large group can accurately manipulate the market place with the same amazing ability as every individual involved. I simply follow this logic to it's rational ends and apply it all consistantly to everyplace in the market, including defense.

Quite simply, the market, if left alone, will take whatever actions bring it the most benefit. If every individual is left alone to act in their self-interest than the market will have an outcome that is most beneficial for all. Whatever laws are truly more economically efficient are the same laws which will succeed over it's competition.

So instead of creating a monopoly and just hoping that your laws will get it right, why not just let the free-market sort out the most beneficial thing?
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

First, the notion that the free market "has proven itself in practice" is meaningless when one considers that it never has been practiced. Theory is all we've got.

Second, the notion of "applying a free market" to governance seems to misconstrue the very nature of what either governance or a market is. A market occurs in any context in which force is, essentially, not an option-- in which people can only deal with each other by means of persuasion and trade-- and only to the extent to which that is true. It presumes either a natural impossibility of force-- contradicted by millenia of human history-- or something else being in place.

Among its many features, as you've mentioned, is permitting competition in activities considered "subject to the market". But what does it mean to allow competition in retributive force, which is the unique purpose of a government? (Defense as such is a misnomer-- policemen do not typically sit outside your door defending you, unless you are a very important person. Even "national defense" is based in significant part upon deterrence. And most Western governments have a history of permitting individuals to defend themselves freely, and even hire security guards, this in no way interferes with their role as government). It means-- that multiple parties can in the same context determine the outcome of a court case, or some equivalent thereto at will. But the nature of such things is that only one such ruling can be enforced. You cannot at once decide both in favor of Roe and in favor of Wade-- how could you? This would require it to be possible for a fetus to be both aborted and to remain in the womb. Yet you propose that Roe and Wade have no monopoly to take their case before. What are they going to do? The market? The market consists of them coming to an agreement of some sort, which if they could do they would never have brought the case forth in the first place! Reasoning would say "Arbitration--" which exists at present, and is merely another form of agreement they could come to, and did not permit them to decide. Should they hire private defense agencies?

Roe goes to his private defense agency, Wade goes to his. One party armed with guns is unequivocally in favor of forcing the mother to keep the baby, one is unequivocally in favor of blowing the brains out of anyone who wants to force the mother to keep the baby.

What happens next is called WAR. War may be the health of the state-- well, yes. Heart attacks are the health of cardiologists, but this does not speak poorly of cardiologists. A war does not end until one party defeats the other, as clearly both their demands could never be satisfied. In other words, one party forces the other to adhere to its law-- to respect its newly acquired monopoly on a jurisdiction. It is known as a government.

The fact of the matter is that these disagreements occur. The market by definition cannot as such resolve them, unless the context of what "market" means is modified with a theory of property. A libertarian socialist is one who would say "Give up your monopoly on that land, leave that trespasser alone to compete with you and we'll see whose farming model is best." But two people cannot at once both fully farm the same square at the same time. An anarcho capitalist says "Give up your monopoly on jurisdiction." But two conflicting laws cannot at once reign supreme at the same time. Jurisdiction is a matter of property rights-- but it is a property right over a wider context than just one farm or so, as in your average landowner case. It is not an initiation of force for a government to defend it's jurisdictional property. If a government does initiate force by doing something else, they should be rebelled against, but whichever party disposes of them acquires the jurisdiction. It is impossible for competition to sort something out when two people can't simultaneously attempt the same task on the same terms without interfering with each other.

It is all well and good, of course, for a competitive market to apply-- to deciding between the merits of the products of different farms with different owners, or to Intel and AMD, Microsoft and Apple. So long as one's property, one's creations from nature or the stuff of the mind, are respected. But a market cannot resolve a disagreement about the same item that cannot at once serve the interests of all those who use it.
Debate Round No. 2
FREEDO

Con

"First, the notion that the free market "has proven itself in practice" is meaningless when one considers that it never has been practiced. Theory is all we've got."

Though record of an entirely free-market cannot be found, surely my opponent would agree that nations leaning farther towards a free-market can observably be seen as more prosperous than those which are not. Besides that, yes, it is simply theory.

"It presumes either a natural impossibility of force-- contradicted by millenia of human history-- or something else being in place."

Do you assume that this thing which need be in-placed is government? Preventing force by implementing force...that makes a lot of sense. The great mass of the atrocities throughout human history of which you speak were caused by government.

"But what does it mean to allow competition in retributive force, which is the unique purpose of a government? It means-- that multiple parties can in the same context determine the outcome of a court case, or some equivalent thereto at will."

This is a very common misconception about Anarchy. Competing courts does NOT mean over-lapping of contradicting laws or legal actions. A person would choose to enter into contract with a certain court system or not. If they do, they are bound by it's laws. If they don't, they are bound by no laws but take risk of having their rights abused by others. With law as voluntary, you are free to weigh the risks involved and make a decision on what you see to be in your best interest. You may choose to enter whatever system you like, maybe Socialist, maybe Capitalist, or you could keep to yourself, and you could do it all without having to move to a new area. If someone doesn't like your system, which many do not, yet they live in it, they would either have to move or deal with it. This doesn't sound pleasurable at all. But in my system, they merely need to be refunded their last contract then buy a new one and still keep their beloved home.

Addressing the war issue: Though my system would stop war between nations, it would open the door for war between business. I must say, though neither are good, the latter is a much better thing than the former. Not only would they be on a much less disastrous scale but it would also insure that the good-guy usually wins. How? Because whichever side is more beneficial to the market will have more money than the other. Again we see, letting the free-market work will bring more economic efficiency and ultimately more happiness for all.

"two conflicting laws cannot at once reign supreme at the same time."

Again, my system does not imply this. Every individually makes a choice about the laws governing their own property. No conflicting laws.

"It is not an initiation of force for a government to defend it's jurisdictional property. If a government does initiate force by doing something else, they should be rebelled against, but whichever party disposes of them acquires the jurisdiction."

Jurisdiction cannot be owned, only the tools to implement it. And the tools which government possess to implement such are not of legitimate ownership, having been forcibly taken from individuals.
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

"Do you assume that this thing which need be in-placed is government?"

You seem to have misread. "Something else" was one of the possible prerequisites of "applying a free market to governance" in the sense in which you speak.

"Preventing force by implementing force...that makes a lot of sense."
Actually, that is the only way force has ever been consistently prevented-- by the threat of retaliation.

"The great mass of the atrocities throughout human history of which you speak were caused by government.
"
Do you have statistics? Death tolls of criminals versus governments?

Even if you did do you realize for them to mean a damn thing variables that haven't been controlled would have to be controlled?

:This is a very common misconception about Anarchy. Competing courts does NOT mean over-lapping of contradicting laws or legal actions. A person would choose to enter into contract with a certain court system or not.
This is a common misconception about courts among Anarchists. The concept of a court that requires the voluntary participation of EVERYONE is unequivocally laughable.

Party A murder's Party B's wife.
Party B takes Party A to court.
Party A says "Um, no. I'm a customer of a different court sorry."

:If they do, they are bound by it's laws. If they don't, they are bound by no laws but take risk of having their rights abused by others.
Um no, if they DO they risk having their rights abused by the people who don't, since those people aren't bound by laws!
The notion of a system of laws that only applies to those who sign in to the court is as laughable as gun control and far more obvious. Signing on is no defense against having your rights violated whatsoever, since no one who wants to violate your rights will sign in.

:Addressing the war issue: Though my system would stop war between nations, it would open the door for war between business. I must say, though neither are good, the latter is a much better thing than the former.
The casualties of the American Civil War exceed the American casualties of all foreign wars it was involved in from the Revolution to Vietnam. It's not a controlled experiment, but it's pretty dramatic correlation to the contrary of your premise, and you seem to like that sort of thing.

:Not only would they be on a much less disastrous scale but it would also insure that the good-guy usually wins. How? Because whichever side is more beneficial to the market will have more money than the other.
Money is a minor factor in wars. And a side that chooses to initiate force by way of taxes will acquire money without having to serve a market. True, that wouldn't be a "free market" anymore, but it is a direct result of attempting to live up to your faulty presumptions that the concept is applicable to government itself in a world in which people who are not libertarian happen to exist.

:Again, my system does not imply this. Every individually makes a choice about the laws governing their own property.
That is a statement that already presumes a fixed law enforced by a monopoly government that permits them to make that choice. Since within your system the presumption is false, the result is that the people who want to make laws governing someone else's property laugh at you, then no doubt shoot you.

:Jurisdiction cannot be owned
A statement like this requires reference to a theory of property. Provide it immediately.

:And the tools which government possess to implement such are not of legitimate ownership, having been forcibly taken from individuals.
Nonsense. You're arguing with a user fee minarchist, not a liberal.
Debate Round No. 3
FREEDO

Con

"Actually, that is the only way force has ever been consistently prevented– by the threat of retaliation."

And I believe in having a threat of retaliation as well but also that one should have the choice of what threat-system they should use, rather than all being forced to use the same.

Do you have statistics? Death tolls of criminals versus governments?

Now come on Ragnar, be serious. The Mao Zedong regime was estimated to have killed over 80 million people, Hitler killed about 6 million, think of everyone who died in WWI, WWII, The American Civil War, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the countless wars of old, all throughout Europe and Asia, imagine all the government atrocities of the Dark Ages, the mass killings caused by governments throughout all of Africa, imagine all the invasions, and all the ethnic cleansings. Now Ragnar, can you really tell me that the overwhelming combined might of every dictator, every soldier, warrior, and government official over millenia of senseless mass blood baths is really to compare to the considerably smaller lone individuals and organizations that have sprung up? Sorry Ragnar, but I'm afraid the burden of proof rests on you.

"This is a common misconception about courts among Anarchists. The concept of a court that requires the voluntary participation of EVERYONE is unequivocally laughable.

Party A murder's Party B's wife.
Party B takes Party A to court.
Party A says "Um, no. I'm a customer of a different court sorry.""

Ragnar, your not understanding this. Different lands are bound by different contracts. Whichever court has right over the land that the person was on who was murdered will have right over judging the case. Get it?

"Um no, if they DO they risk having their rights abused by the people who don't, since those people aren't bound by laws!"

Again, a misunderstanding. If they choose not to enter into contract with a court than they are not bound by laws on their own property. However, they ARE bound by the laws of someone else's property when they are on it. I explained this before; basically it's every property acting like it's own nation.

"The casualties of the American Civil War exceed the American casualties of all foreign wars it was involved in from the Revolution to Vietnam."

You think the American Civil War was a business war? Hello? It was a war between two nations. Business may have been involved, just like most other wars, but it was run by government.

"Money is a minor factor in wars."

Riiiiiight…

"That is a statement that already presumes a fixed law enforced by a monopoly government that permits them to make that choice."

You think government gives us our right to property? And your Objectivist? I believe in protection of property just as you do, but also believe in choosing who you want to protect it.

"A statement like this requires reference to a theory of property. Provide it immediately."

Property is a natural occurrence in a free-market, it is part of human nature. It is the recognition of objective and physical objects becoming as if an extension of our own being, having choice over what to do with it. Any other kind of property or lack thereof is unnatural and can only be sustained by some kind of enforcement.

" Nonsense. You're arguing with a user fee minarchist, not a liberal."

But Ragnar, didn't you say that "If a government does initiate force by doing something else, they should be rebelled against, but whichever party disposes of them acquires the jurisdiction."? Certainly for you to obtain your Minarchy you would have to rebel to some government that does initiate taxation. Property is still illegitimate when you take it from someone who already had obtained it illegitimately.
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

"And I believe in having a threat of retaliation as well"
So you withdraw your sarcasm about preventing force by implementing force.

"
Now come on Ragnar, be serious. The Mao Zedong regime was estimated to have killed over 80 million people, Hitler killed about 6 million, think of everyone who died in WWI, WWII, The American Civil War, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the countless wars of old, all throughout Europe and Asia, imagine all the government atrocities of the Dark Ages, the mass killings caused by governments throughout all of Africa, imagine all the invasions, and all the ethnic cleansings. Now Ragnar, can you really tell me that the overwhelming combined might of every dictator, every soldier, warrior, and government official over millenia of senseless mass blood baths is really to compare to the considerably smaller lone individuals and organizations that have sprung up? Sorry Ragnar, but I'm afraid the burden of proof rests on you.
"
You edited out the part where there is nothing to prove because no government-free country has ever been attempted and so there are no grounds for comparison. And criminals may operate on a smaller scale, but there are more of them :P

:\Ragnar, your not understanding this. Different lands are bound by different contracts.
Freedo, you're not understanding this, that's a LAW. How do you intend to enforce it against the competing government that says "nuh uh?" By establishing a monopoly to push them out no doubt.

:Whichever court has right over the land that the person was on who was murdered will have right over judging the case. Get it?
Whichever government doesn't give a damn about rights you can do absolutely nothing about without establishing a monopoly, especially if the issue in question is who has the land rights in the first place. :P

:Again, a misunderstanding. If they choose not to enter into contract with a court than they are not bound by laws on their own property. However, they ARE bound by the laws of someone else's property
Which requires reference to a supreme law by a supreme lawmaker who determines what constitutes property which is only coherent in the context of MONOPOLY.

Incidentally, you are also ignoring issues that take place over the range of multiple properties in addition to disputes over properties.

:You think the American Civil War was a business war?
It was a war between rival governments. It only ended-- when one of them managed to assert a monopoly.

:It was a war between two nations.
No, it wasn't. There was only one nation ever involved. One of the parties wanted to change that. It just so happens they failed.

:Business may have been involved, just like most other wars, but it was run by government.
A government is just a special type of business. One I advocate monopoly in and you don't.

:Riiiiiight…
See also 'Nam.

:You think government gives us our right to property?
No, but it gives us the fact that the property is ENFORCED.

:I believe in protection of property just as you do, but also believe in choosing who you want to protect it.
Which is jumping the gun in issues where the property's ownership is the matter of dispute and in which multiple properties are involved.

:Property is a natural occurrence in a free-market, it is part of human nature. It is the recognition of objective and physical objects becoming as if an extension of our own being, having choice over what to do with it. Any other kind of property or lack thereof is unnatural and can only be sustained by some kind of enforcement.
Any kind whatsoever can only be sustained by enforcement, the proof of this can be had when someone tries to take your computer. Furthermore, a field of jurisdiction is an extension of the government to exactly the same extent a field of broadcast spectrum is an extension of the broadcaster or a field of soil is an extension of the farmer. Also, that isn't a theory of property n00b, it doesn't detail how one originally acquires it.

"But Ragnar, didn't you say that "If a government does initiate force by doing something else, they should be rebelled against, but whichever party disposes of them acquires the jurisdiction."? Certainly for you to obtain your Minarchy you would have to rebel to some government that does initiate taxation. Property is still illegitimate when you take it from someone who already had obtained it illegitimately."
How so? It was illegitimate at the time, gummint killed the illegitimate possessor, it now has no possessor, and thus returns to nature, gummint acquires it from nature by mixing labor.
Debate Round No. 4
FREEDO

Con

"So you withdraw your sarcasm about preventing force by implementing force."

They are two entirely different kinds of force. The force you seek is to take control away from someone over their own property. The one that I do, which shouldn't be called force at all because it is the exact opposite, is the force to keep ones control over their property, it is freedom.

"And criminals may operate on a smaller scale, but there are more of them"

The majority of criminals don't kill people, which is what was being referred to. That is if government officials aren't being considered criminals.

"How do you intend to enforce it against the competing government that says "nuh uh?" By establishing a monopoly to push them out no doubt."

The only "enforcing" being done is that within an individual property, acting towards the owners will for it, or a group of properties that individually entered into voluntary contract with one another. Again, they work as if very many small nations.

"Which requires reference to a supreme law by a supreme lawmaker who determines what constitutes property which is only coherent in the context of MONOPOLY."

The supreme lawmaker is the land-owner. The only monopoly he has is over the laws of his own land, which can hardly be called a monopoly.

"disputes over properties."

Do you think a property dispute can be better settled by some impersonal judge or on a local level?

"No, it wasn't. There was only one nation ever involved. One of the parties wanted to change that. It just so happens they failed."

USA had a president, CSA had a president, they were two different governments.

"See also 'Nam."

And why were we there? Can you think of any war that wasn't either about money, freedom or both? And on a local level, money would have even more to play a part in who wins.

"No, but it gives us the fact that the property is ENFORCED."

What you seek is something that both enforces and also abuses property rights. What I seek is one that only does the former. As a former Minarchist, it was hard to come to that conclusion but I have over time come to see that it is indeed possible.

"Furthermore, a field of jurisdiction is an extension of the government to exactly the same extent a field of broadcast spectrum is an extension of the broadcaster or a field of soil is an extension of the farmer."

A broadcast spectrum and soil are both physical unlike the concept of jurisdiction. Why not take your rationality further? If you can have ownership over jurisdiction, not only of yourself but of the entire concept, then why can't you own the entire concept of happiness as well, or love, or any other mental construct? Intellectual property does not exist. Further more, it's enforcement is not beneficial to society. The free-market relies on open access to advancement, it is always trying to make things better for the sake of profit. If someone has a monopoly over an idea than they are hindering the progression of society, cutting short it's advancement. Copyright laws cause only frustration for the consumer.

Now for a few more things I'd like to point out in my last argument.

Expansion of government:

Hasn't history shown us that even the smallest of governments have the tendency to grow? What makes you think yours will be any different? An argument between a Totalitarian and a Minarchist is one between an oak tree and an acorn, ultimately they are both the same thing, one just hasn't quite gotten there yet.

Corrupt judges:

What is it exactly that makes you place so much faith in your leaders? Where is it you will find these perfect beings to run your country? If you place your livelihood on the bet that they will maintain their integrity than you are one sad little fool. These judges will not for long hold to principle in defending property only how you see fit, they will eventually see the opportunities to further their own interest and they will take it. It's human nature and you can count on it. My system seeks to work with human nature rather than ever so much trying to work around it.

I thank my opponent, it has been a wonderful debate.
Ragnar_Rahl

Pro

"The force you seek is to take control away from someone over their own property. "
Saying a person shouldn't point their gun property at your head takes a degree of control away-- it prevents them from controlling it in directions that affect property that is NOT theirs, in this case jurisdictional property.

"
The majority of criminals don't kill people, which is what was being referred to. That is if government officials aren't being considered criminals."
The majority of government officials don't kill people either. A small number do most of the killings. They manage to do it primarily because there is no one bigger in town. If there is no one "bigger" in town than the common nonmonopoly criminals, then killing becomes much less of a monopoly operation :P.

"Again, they work as if very many small nations."
There is a reason nations are big. Because problems are big. THEY CROSS PROPERTY LINES. If someone shoots your wife, and flees on to your neighbors property, do you support that neighbor's right to exercise his law monopoly on his property and pardon them?
Takes a bit longer to flee to Canada, and we only have two countries bordering us, Canada and Mexico, both of whom we have extradition treaties with. Since samples are much smaller in your model, unlike with Canada and Mexico not all parties to the agreement will necessarily contain crime victims, and thus the agreement won't happen, especially since the criminal isn't likely to target his favorite safety area.

"
Do you think a property dispute can be better settled by some impersonal judge or on a local level?
"
Considering how it will not necessarily be settled AT ALL on a "local level" (which is a STUPID phrase, for one thing impersonal judges for such things are often rather local in jurisdiction, for another arbitration agencies, which I presume you're referring to, could grow), let alone well, and in a system where there are impersonal judges it is still permissible to settle things out of court. The court only steps into property disputes when a party to the dispute has already proven by requesting such stepping in that they have no desire to reach an agreement with the disputee. And what agreement is possible? If you have a property dispute with three drunk guys on a football team, and you can prove you own it, what do they care about such proof if they are three people, and you are one, and they are on the football team, and you are not?

"
USA had a president, CSA had a president, they were two different governments.
"
Yes. Competing governments within one nation. They would have become two-- if the CSA had won, in the unlikely event it decided to let the loser keep their system of government. But a nation is not a nation until it becomes one :P.

"
And why were we there?"
To prevent the system advocated by a rival for global power (incidentally a very oppressive system) from spreading?

"Can you think of any war that wasn't either about money, freedom or both?"
Irrelevant here, we were speaking about victory, not motive.

"And on a local level, money would have even more to play a part in who wins."
Bill Gates has money.

I can gather up a small group of hippies with roughly one-500,000th his net worth combined, and they can kick his arse with the element of surprise and numbers.

And if I'm willing to sacrifice surprise, I can probably gather more numbers.

I wouldn't want to kick Gates' arse but that's irrelevant.

"
What you seek is something that both enforces and also abuses property rights"
Whose property is abused?

"What I seek is one that only does the former."
Except it doesn't.

:A broadcast spectrum and soil are both physical unlike the concept of jurisdiction. Why not take your rationality further? If you can have ownership over jurisdiction, not only of yourself but of the entire concept, then why can't you own the entire concept of happiness as well
You don't own the concept of jurisdiction. You own YOUR jurisdiction. You also own YOUR happiness but this has no practical consequences.
And actually, a jurisdiction is about as physical as a broadcast spectrum-- neither is a material object, both are merely the rights to perform certain actions in a certain location defined relative to the object Earth.

:Intellectual property does not exist.
Yes, it does.

:Further more, it's enforcement is not beneficial to society.
You write a book.
Some arsehole prints it and sells it without your permission. Unlike you, he did not have to WRITE the book to get it, as a result, he is at a competitive advantage, because he takes the product of your investment without having paid into the investment-- he is free riding on you.
Why would anyone write a book for money ever again?

"The free-market relies on open access to advancement"
If by this mean to other people's designs and stories, to the same extent the free market relies on open access to your neighbor's house, i.e., not at at all.

"it is always trying to make things better for the sake of profit"
Which is exactly why the profits should go to the one who, you know, made them better.

"If someone has a monopoly over an idea than they are hindering the progression of society"
Every bit as fallacious as "if someone has a monopoly over a land area then they are hindering the progression of society."

"
Hasn't history shown us that even the smallest of governments have the tendency to grow?"
History has never shown us anything about a minarchy whatsoever. None has ever existed.
And it's not like they are plants or anything. They depend on human action. The point is to act in a manner conducive to keeping one from growing.

"An argument between a Totalitarian and a Minarchist is one between an oak tree and an acorn, ultimately they are both the same thing, one just hasn't quite gotten there yet.
"
No, an argument between Stalin and Cody maybe would be analogous. That is not at all analogous, because not only has the minarchist "not gotten there," but he isn't headed there.

"
What is it exactly that makes you place so much faith in your leaders?"
The leaders do, or don't. If the latter, I will seek to shoot them.

"Where is it you will find these perfect beings to run your country?"
Define "perfect being." And I'll look wherever they show up. Until I find a better guy to be in charge, I'll act under the assumption I'll end up doing it.

"If you place your livelihood on the bet that they will maintain their integrity"
Everyone places their livelihood on a bet on their own integrity and that of the people who contract with them. They might have various insurance measures of course, in this case revolt.

"These judges will not for long hold to principle in defending property only how you see fit"
Even if I'm in charge of them? :P

"they will eventually see the opportunities to further their own interest "
How exactly is it in their interest to undermine the very things that got them the job, thereby ensuring that people will want someone else in the job instead?
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 6 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"He should have said more that taxation is theft,"
He challenged a user-fee minarchist.

"negative rights are surrendered by crime, can be bought back, "
Wait, what? How do you buy rights?

"and public services are economic goods."
I'm not getting where this would go.

What's with all the necromancy these past few days?
Posted by FREEDO 6 years ago
FREEDO
This is was my first debate. I did terrible. lol.
Posted by Skyler827 6 years ago
Skyler827
I am somewhat disappointed. I am an anarcho capitalist and I don't think Con did a good job defending the case. He should have said more that taxation is theft, negative rights are surrendered by crime, can be bought back, and public services are economic goods. He furthermore argued for a territorial monopoly on judicial services. HINT HINT!! IF he argues for a TERRITORIAL MONOPOLY on judicial services, he's NOT and Anarchist. I'd be willing to debate anyone who wants a better debate on Anacho Capitalism.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
I have never read any Nozick. But most of the references to his arguments that I've heard are arguments that spread a lot amongst libertarians. Including the one you just stated :P.

The other day I picked up a copy of Nozick's Philosophical Explanations (Happened to be at Half Price Books), I'll probably get to it eventually.
Posted by ZT 7 years ago
ZT
You should. In the begining he has an interesting argument where he says that private protection agencies would evolve into the state, or something very similar, naturally.
Posted by FREEDO 7 years ago
FREEDO
Naw, I haven't.
Posted by ZT 7 years ago
ZT
Interesting debate. Have any of you read Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia?
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
That doesn't fix the problem, because voluntary exchange relies on BOTH parties having motive. And you can't just pay them all off, or the criminal will go to the next house over, or so on and so forth.
Posted by FREEDO 7 years ago
FREEDO
Sorry, that wasn't clear at all.
Rephrased:
That's why there's strong incentive for YOU to go into voluntary contract-government with your neighbor, so in a case like that you could have justice issued to the killer of your wife.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 7 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Wait, what? It's your wife. How is that an incentive for HIM to do so?

He's unmarried btw. :P
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
FREEDORagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ZT 7 years ago
ZT
FREEDORagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
FREEDORagnar_RahlTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03