The Instigator
Sieben
Pro (for)
Losing
165 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
176 Points

On balance, Anarchism is More Humanitarian than State Planning

Do you like this debate?NoYes+21
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: 8/19/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 27,988 times Debate No: 12788
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (268)
Votes (65)

 

Sieben

Pro

Every broad argument will be tagged with a letter/number.

Elucidation:

D1) On balance: Keep the framework reasonable. Ignore the possibility that aliens could invade and destroy every society beginning with consonants. Employ ceteris parabis assumptions.

D2) Anarchism: The lack of aggressive monopoly. In this conversation, aggression is distinct from coercion according to the Libertarian ethic. The forceful defense of self ownership and peaceful homesteading is "coercion", not "aggression". Attacking innocent people with the intent to manipulate them into a social arrangement moves the affected group out of anarchism.

D3) More: The pro/con may secure different elements of humanitarianism. It is up to them to show their share is more important.

D4) Humanitarian: Take your pick. Better productivity, respect for rights, quality of life, social stability.

D5) State Planning: Any non-anarchical arrangement. Familiar examples include democracy, monarchy, slave labor. States are not necessarily territorial monopolies, nor must they fulfill any particular duties (security). States are characterized by their method of organization, namely aggression.

Constructive:

O1) Civilization does not come about by intellectual fiat. A successful society must harmonize the actions of participants. Different incentive structures lead to different, predictable ends.

C1) Economic Productivity: Individuals in anarchy have the option to trade. Actors can pursue mutually beneficial arrangements, creating a division of labor and increasing production efficiency. Under trade, each individual's means become more expedient. This is an ongoing process with no logical end.

C2a) Emergence of Rights: Given the desirability of trade, each individual would prefer the general security of person and labor. There is an incentive for each individual to cheat on these rules, appropriating another's fruits in the hopes that the structure of production will not be badly disrupted. In short, people in anarchy face a collective action problem.

C2b) Overcoming the Collective Action Problem: A solution brings with it the enormous benefit of trade. In short, there is an incentive inherent in anarchy to overcome this problem and establish the right of persons to labor peacefully.

O3) Some groups of humans may find the solution easily if aided by intelligence, personal morality, and low communication costs. Others may find it more difficult and be unable to establish any lengthy periods of prosperity. I still claim it as the best choice among many. Utopia is not an option.

C3) Moral Superiority: The incentives of anarchism lead away from aggression and warfare. I will not bother to develop a complex moral theory, but a quick survey of possible moral theories shines favorably on the right to self ownership.

C4) Sustainability: Free trade is self reinforcing because it creates a dependence on the libertarian rights of others.

Societies may employ a monetary pricing system, by which accounting emerges. The price of goods and services transmits information between consumers, merchants, and producers. Prices incentivize lasting economic use of resources.

Closing: The arguments against state planning are too many to mention. I will bring them up as my opponent's constructive warrants.
Danielle

Con

Anarchism is by far the most idealistic of political ideologies.

Pro's Round One argument essentially posits that individuals will simply live with no government (laws), and trade to survive. He says there is no incentive to cheat the system because it will disrupt peaceful trade. Of course this rationalization rejects the logic that human beings are greedy and selfish by nature [1]. Keeping that in mind, it is unreasonable to assume that trading disputes can simply "work themselves out." For instance, suppose I agreed to trade Pro one chicken for one lamb. After giving me the lamb, I walk away without giving Pro the chicken. What happens? Well Pro can presumably shout from the roof tops that I am a no good cheat, but can he prove it? If so, will that guarantee that nobody else will trade with me based on my act? Or is it reasonable to assume that someone else (most likely in a more desperate position) will trade with me regardless? In other words, how am I punished for this act? If not, is that moral, and/or a productive way to run society?

With privatized police, judges and/or jails there is no responsibility for law enforcement of any kind to remain consistent in their values or punishment, and more importantly there is no system of checks and balances to ensure equality or fairness in every or even most cases. Additionally there would be chaos. Who would police or judge a specific dispute? Suppose Pro steals from me and I want him punished. What do? Any answer Pro gives, I'm sure, can be easily dismantled.

Another thing - What about currency? Pro says that society may employ a monetary pricing system, and yet I fail to see how everyone in "society" will agree to one system. If everyone does not agree to said system, then democracy or tyranny of the majority ensues eliminating Pro's idea of lawlessness. I say lawlessness because again we reach the same problem: If laws are to be created, it would mean that EVERYONE must agree to those laws, or else it enacts another situation of democracy or tyranny of the majority - which act specifically against Pro's presented ideals.

Most rational people accept that currency is a preferable and convenient way to place value on things and trade. Without government or a central currency-maker there is no guarantee that this favorable system of trade would be possible. What if I use one form of currency and Pro uses another? What if they are valued differently? This does not make much sense. Additionally, how would our currency variables make it possible for us to trade efficiently with other nations?

Most importantly, in an anarchist utopia, how would two people who have different conceptions of property rights - or a dispute involving property rights - justly, reasonably and logically settle their dispute? Here's another issue: Many anarchists see the destruction of property as an acceptable form of violence, or argue that it is not violence at all. For instance, Voltairine de Cleyre drew on American historical events, including the destroying of revenue stamps and the Boston Tea Party, as a defense of such violent activities [2]. If one acts violently, who will determine if it is coercive vs. aggressive, and regardless of the answer, how would the offender be punished? Who would punish them?

There are other concerns [3]. A government is an aggregation of individuals. Why assume that every government actor is a rotten power monger, but then assume that every free trader holds values similar to your own and will act rationally and with a cool head in a crisis situation? Moreover, what sort of freedom do you have if there is no justice? What sort of freedom do you have if it cannot be protected based upon objective principles, regardless of whether you are wealthy or poor, strong or weak, well known or a newcomer? Is freedom, then, only for the strong or wealthy?

We have proof of what happens in places where there is no law or authority figure(s) even if just for a short amount of time. For instance: Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia... the list goes on. The result is violence, blood shed and overall chaos. If anarchy worked, why has no civilization successfully employed this? Even the peaceful Native Americans had tribal chiefs responsible for doling out punishments and regarded as centralized rulers. One also wonders why the problems associated with government - including greed, exploitation, etc. - are possible via government but are not possible WITHOUT government. Especially since the "government" is nothing more than a bunch of people to begin with. What evidence can be given to ensure that the same result (or worse) would not ensue?

I eagerly await Pro's response.

[1] http://www.helium.com...
[2] http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu...
[3] http://www.solopassion.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Sieben

Pro

NEG REBUTTAL:

As a preface, the neg has criticized Anarchism without expounding an alternative organizational theory or attacking my O3. Ballot goes aff by default.

To correct the Neg's first paragraph, I did say there is an incentive to cheat on libertarian rights. I nowhere rejected any possible greed or "evil" in humans. See my O3.

Neg is skeptical that trade disputes can work themselves out. I spiked this in my C2, where I explain that dishonest trading results in economic losses for the whole community, creating incentive to solve this problem. Neg does not rebut the function of incentives outlined in my O1.

Regardless, a historical example of anarchist trade law is the Law Merchant. Roderick T Long explains (1) :

"An example of voluntary law is the Law Merchant, a system of commercial law that emerged in the late Middle Ages in response to the need for a common set of standards to govern international trade. The merchants, fed up with the excessive rigidity of governmental laws regulating commerce, and frustrated by the lack of uniformity among the commercial codes of different nations, simply formed their own Europe-wide system of courts and legal codes. For enforcement, the Law Merchant relied not on state-imposed penalties but on credit reports; those who refused to abide by the system's rules and decisions would have a hard time finding other merchants willing to deal with them."

So boycott is one option. There are other enforcement mechanisms consistent with anarchism.

Neg goes on to speculate chaos would ensue if there were private law enforcement. Law and Order arise on the market because security is demanded. It is possible that aggression is also demanded, but Economic forces serve as a natural check on private security. The cost of aggression is much higher under anarchy where costs are born privately, versus statism where costs are born socially.

The neg also worries that there will be no equality or justice under anarchy, but it really depends on what people demand and what works. I will say that there is likely to be more legal equality under anarchy because private security firms bear their own operating costs. State courts are easier to bribe because they socialize costs.

It is also a little rich for her to talk about justice when statism relies on coercion of innocent people.

Neg goes on to assume that currency can only arise by state fiat. She is very incredulous, but attitude is not an argument. Money historically arose out of barter as the most "saleable" good (2) (3). Hence gold, silver, etc. I will wait for her to develop a theory of state banking before attacking fiat currency.

Differing conceptions of law is also brought up as a potential source of conflict in anarchism. My C2 spiked this, and the Law Merchant is applicable, but I'll buttress it with some more history. Hasnas explains (4):

"English law provides a nice illustration of how law evolves when not preempted by government. When people live together in society, disputes inevitably arise. There are only two ways to resolve these disputes: violently or peacefully. Because violence has high costs and produces unpredictable results, human beings naturally seek peaceful alternatives. The most obvious such alternative is negotiation. Hence, in Anglo-Saxon times, the practice arose of holding violent self-redress in abeyance while attempts were made to reach a negotiated settlement. This was done by bringing the dispute before the communal public assembly, the moot, whose members, much like present-day mediators, attempted to facilitate an accommodation that the opposing parties found acceptable. When reached, such accommodations resolved the dispute in a way that preserved the peace of the community."

Neg claims that I assume government actors are evil, while anarchist actors are automatically good and free from corruption. I made no such assumption. Her concerns about the poor and weak under anarchy are addressed above where I explain the relative disadvantages of state courts.

Neg cites Kosovo, Bosnia, and Somalia as examples of failed anarchy. Somalia has fared better under anarchism than statism (5). Even if this were untrue, neg hasn't explained why a state would work better, or why we should argue in anecdotes before sound theory.

She cites lack of successful anarchist precedent. But many good things were unprecedented. It is likely that the neg's ideal state, whatever that is, has never existed either. Regardless, I cite medieval iceland as an example (6).

Neg conceptualizes government as "nothing more than a bunch of people to begin with". This definition destroys all ground for debate. The girl scouts are a "bunch of people" but they are not a government. My D5 explained that "states are characterized by their method of organization, namely aggression". This definition is superior because of its clarity and ability to identify groups normally considered states.

AFF CASE:

O1 unchallenged
Offense: Anarchism has good incentive structures, see rebuttal

C1 unchallenged
Offense: Anarchism provides an increase in the standard of living.

C2a challenged
Defense: Provision of security is simply a collective action problem. Neg does not show why it is unsolvable.

C2b unchallenged
Offense: Problems in anarchy are self correcting

O3 unchallenged
Offense: Utopia is not an option. Neg has to explain her alternative.

C3 unchallenged
Offense: Self ownership and peace are humanitarian

C4 challenged
Defense: Neg is skeptical about the formation of an anarchist society. Does not speak on long term stability.

In closing, I rebut the neg's opening remark that anarchism is too idealistic. Serious anarchists must think about incentives and game theory problems in developing their political ideology. Statists play god from the ivory tower, calling out "more justice" or "more equality". I agree with David D Friedman that you should "drop the assumption that government will automatically make the right regulations and instead try to figure out what regulations it will be politically profitable to make, and what their consequences will be."

(1) http://libertariannation.org...
(2) http://projects.exeter.ac.uk...
(3) http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org...
(4) http://everydayanarchist.com...
(5) http://mises.org...
(the link to the cia factbook is broken https://www.cia.gov...)
(6) http://www.daviddfriedman.com...
Danielle

Con

[ CLARIFICATIONS ]

Pro is seemingly arguing an Aristotelian position: That government or politics emerges naturally as a biological necessity, or as a natural result of a collective group of individuals coming together to form a society. In other words, people are capable of governing themselves according to the necessities of the times without following a specific plan which he feels challenges both morality and practicality. Due to time and character restraints, I will expand on a more preferable option to anarchy in the upcoming rounds and explain why a specific non-anarchist system is preferable in R3 giving him 2 rounds (the traditional standard) to reply.

[REBUTTAL TO THE AFF CASE ]

O1) Anarchism has good incentive structures.

Re: Pro's only argument here is that a successful society must harmonize the actions of participants. This does not mandate that anarchy is the only system compatible with this ideology. In fact, almost any other state planned system meets these standards -- hence why this may have went "unchallenged" i.e. ignored for irrelevance.

C1) Anarchism provides an increase in the standard of living.

Re: Looking back at R1, we can see that Pro's only argument here is that people can trade. Once again, this is an option in many other forms of government aside from anarchy, so this proves nothing in anarchy's favor. People can trade in a democracy too -- probably why this went "unchallenged."

C2 a) Provision of security is simply a collective action problem.

Re: Pro says that the Neg has not shown why this problem is unsolvable without government. On the contrary, I explained how a private legal system is idealistic and impractical to which Pro has offered no rebuttal. To re-cap my arguments, there would be no responsibility for law enforcement to remain consistent in their values or punishment; no system of checks and balances to ensure equality or fairness; no answer as to who would judge specific disputes (if both parties did not agree on a particular arbitrator); no answer as to who would be responsible for funding said arbitrator; no answer as to what laws or mandates would ensure said arbitrator was paid at all; no specified non-aggressive force that could punish anyone for non-payments; etc.

In short, I did respond, and Pro did not respond to my rebuttal.

C2 b) Problems in anarchy are self correcting.

Re: The only "self correcting" argument Pro gave in R1 is trade. Once again, anarchy is not the only system in which people can trade, meaning this point does not prove anything. He has said that the desire to labor and trade peacefully will ensure that no corruption ensues, and that I left this point unchallenged. However in R1 I explicitly outlined reasons and examples to disprove this idealistic notion of "self correcting" government. It's becoming increasingly obvious that Pro is ignoring my arguments and then stating that I did not refute his points. Pro has the BOP and yet has not offered substantial evidence that the simple allowance of trade is enough to solve discrepancies peacefully and justly while also ignoring my examples and analogies depicting otherwise.

O3) Utopia is not an option.

Re: In R1, the only thing Pro said in this point is "I still claim it as the best choice among many." What EVIDENCE supports this? He simply states his opinion... So why is this even listed as a bulleted point that I'm supposed to respond to at all? I could simply say "I still claim anarchism is not the best choice among many." Throughout this debate is where I will outline a case in favor of a non-anarchistic system.

C3) Self ownership and peace are humanitarian.

Re: In R1 Pro said, "The incentives of anarchism lead away from aggression and warfare." He once again says this point went "unchallenged" yet again we can see that I absolutely did respond to this in my R1 rebuttal. While I do not deny that self-ownership and peace are humanitarian, I disagree that anarchism leads away from aggression and warfare which I specifically stated in R1. I pointed out examples of places that became increasingly violent after lawlessness or the lack of a central government, and to quote myself verbatim:

"Many anarchists see the destruction of property as an acceptable form of violence, or argue that it is not violence at all. For instance, Voltairine de Cleyre drew on American historical events, including the destroying of revenue stamps and the Boston Tea Party, as a defense of such violent activities. If one acts violently, who will determine if it is coercive vs. aggressive, and regardless of the answer, how would the offender be punished? Who would punish them?"

You'll notice that Pro never responded to any of these questions, comments or concerns -- and instead simply says I left his point regarding anarchy and violence "unchallenged" lol. On the contrary, I gave examples of how violence is nearly inextricable from anarchy and some anarchist arguments in defense of violence which went entirely ignored and/or misrepresented.

C4) Neg is skeptical about the formation of an anarchist society.

Re: Pro's argument was "Free trade is self reinforcing because it creates a dependence on the libertarian rights of others." This does not answer or solve the problems I presented in R1 whatsoever. Pro simply says I am skeptical and yet does not offer a rebuttal to my points. For instance, I asked what happened in cases where I did not make good on the promises of a contract. If people were still willing to trade with me or do business for a variety of reasons, then I essentially remain "unpunished." In that way the popular and powerful people are untouchable while others in society experience a different standard of living.

[ CONCLUSION THUS FAR ]

We can see that I did indeed respond to all of Pro's "unchallenged" arguments yet he chose not to respond to my rebuttal outside of single sentences with no explanations. Quotes from other anarchists in favor of anarchism do not address my rebuttal directly.

[ EXPANSION OF THE NEG CASE ]

I accept Pro's definition of government and never implied that government should ONLY be defined as a group of people. Instead, I was revisiting the other questions I asked in R1 (which Pro ignored) -- Why assume that every government actor is a rotten power monger, but then assume that every free trader holds values similar to your own and will act rationally and with a cool head in a crisis situation? The presumable answer is that the people will govern themselves because a form of government or other equivalent which holds people accountable for their actions is preferable in an anarchist society.

This, of course, ignores my next point: What if no desired system or group is mutually agreed upon or deemed preferable by everyone in society? We can assume that this would be the case, and as such, the ideology which Pro finds preferable to govern is only reliable therefore as a preference of the majority. I wonder how this is any different from criticisms of democracy and I hope Pro responds to these concerns in the next round. I find the answer of respecting everyone's libertarian rights to be circular; who is there to enforce those rights? And since we agree that people are greedy (therefore inclined to cheat and steal) then a simple "incentive" not to cheat does not really address the problem or prove in any way that people actually wouldn't cheat -- especially considering Pro ignored the discrepancies regarding money, power, popularity and other things that would interfere with the justice system.

In short, we experience these problems in our society (the rich and/or powerful are not held accountable or to the same standards) so why should we believe that anarchy -- a system with even less stringent rules -- would not afford the same problems? This central question left unanswered lies at the heart of my rebuttal for anarchism.
Debate Round No. 2
Sieben

Pro

I may have assumed too much intuition of the readers. It is frequent mistake of mine and I apologize. The tags in my case are D=definition, O = observation, C = contention.

CLARIFICATIONS) I never rely on self governance in anarchy. Law in anarchy emerges between individuals to resolve conflict. See the Law Merchant and Anglo Saxon Common Law mentioned in round 2.

REBUTTAL TO AFF CASE)

O1) This is just a standard to establish political pragmatism. She is right that it does not apply to only anarchy.

C1) Government is an aggressive monopoly. This by definition means some aspect of free trade is abridged. Under states individuals are captive "consumers", unable to choose between providers of specific services. More free trade means more division of labor, more productivity, and an increase in the standard of living. Anarchism is simply an attempt to have the most free trade. Ceteris parabis this makes it more humanitarian.

C2) Neg thinks anarchism won't work because of disohonesty and disagreement. Neg's arguments probably seem convincing to her because she assumes they take place in a backdrop of lawlessness rather than just statelessness. I cited the Law Merchant and Anglo Saxon law as historical examples of how conflicts are resolved peacefully without states, bolstering the theory of C2b that anarchic societies default to peace and order rather than chaos.

The theoretical answer validating anarchic order is to realize conflicts are inconvenient to fight out. It makes sense to establish a well known body of law and enforcement mechanisms. So when you run into one of the problems neg brings up, there's already a system in place for dealing with it. The difference between these legal institutions and a State is they aren't formed aggressively.

Neg goes on to claim that there is no guarantee to consistent justice in anarchism. I don't think any society can guarantee this because humans have free (enough) will, but likelihoods can be derived by looking at what incentives actors face. I pointed out "it really depends on what people demand and what works. [...]There is likely to be more legal equality under anarchy because private security firms bear their own operating costs. State courts are easier to bribe because they socialize costs.".

I'll extend to say that the Law Merchant is an example of inconsistent state laws leading to the creation of uniform and just international law.

Moreover, it truly is "rich for her to talk about justice when statism relies on coercion of innocent people". Hans Hoppe explains that an "expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms".

Neg is also critical that I do not outline exactly how anarchic dispute resolution will work. Well, the Law Merchant was based off ostracism. Anglo-Saxon custom was trial by jury. Order provided in Iceland arose from voluntary traditional law (1). Similarly with Somalia (2). Even in the absence of a common traditional legal system, different ethnic groups forming temporary societies in the not-so-wild west had great success at establishing peace (3) (4). If the neg would like to know the detailed nuts and bolts of anarchism in practice, who will judge, who will pay etc, she should simply follow my citations. There are many workable options. It is incentives that matter, not logistics.

Neg also doubts that free trade is self correcting because of the flaws she sees with anarchism, but trade creates strong interdependence. Neg never explains why people in anarchy can't choose prosperity over chaos and death. Indeed, above I offer overwhelming evidence that they successfully don't. Trade is a positive feedback loop. Destruction is a negative feedback loop.

Neg's arguments boil down to "you can't trade if you don't have law", and my response is "maybe, but you can have law without states".

O3) This card exists to force us to compare/contrast, rather than just criticize. The neg agreed to outline an alternative society, satisfying this standard. My contentions, not observations, are what provide reasons for the desirability of anarchy.

C3) Actually Anglo Saxon law is an attempt to show neg what happens when people disagree. They choose peace over violence. Neg says she "pointed out examples of places that became increasingly violent after lawlessness or the lack of a central government". Somalia, Kosovo and Bosnia... I turned the Somalia example on her in R2. I can research the other two if this becomes a voting issue, but she hasn't sourced or defended these claims.

Neg thinks violence is inextricably bound up with anarchy, citing Voltairine de Cleyre's support of the American revolution. I do not claim that Anarchy is always peaceful, but my reasoning and evidence suggests that it tends towards peace.

At any rate, self ownership is a good thing. Universal self ownership requires anarchism.

C4) Neg's arguments against anarchy are really short term. Its true I need to address all her other objections (see above) but I chose to extend C4 because long term stability is nice. The evidence I've been citing supports this, as well as the self reinforcing nature of trade described above.

CONCLUSION THUS FAR) I don't think neg's challenges are serious. She argues in what-ifs and then ignore incentives and the evidence. She has to explain why people in anarchy can't have order even though there is a huge incentive to establish it. Great historical precedent too.

My quotes were not arguments from "other anarchists in favor of anarchism". They describe relevant facets of historical anarchies. The Law Merchant excerpt is not some "RA RA anarchy" chant. I brought it up because she was worried that trade law could not be developed and enforced outside the state apparatus.

EXPANSION OF THE NEG CASE) I stated twice in R2 and repeat again that I do not assume government actors are all rotten and anarchic actors are all good. I explain above that people do not govern themselves, but that governance arises between individuals.

Neg seems to think that unanimity is required for law. Its not. Laws can be effective even if some people don't agree with them. There is still disagreement about law under States. What counts are enforcement mechanisms, many historical examples of which have been cited. Regardless, I have given evidence that there was good regional agreement over law in anarchy.

Neg asserts libertarian rights are circular because "who is there to enforce those rights?". Enforcement has been answered, and I don't see why libertarian rights are circular just because they have to be enforced. She'll see see that money, power, and popularity are bigger problems under statism than anarchy.

She concludes stating that anarchy has "less stringent rules" than statism. The high degree of law and order in my historical examples speaks to the contrary.

On a peripheral note, the neg brought up many points in R2. Some were dropped in R3:
Somalia/Kosovo/Bosnia
Unprecedence of Anarchy
Need for state currency

It seems unfair that I had to allocate space and effort in rebuttal if they're just going to be dropped in the next round. I don't know if this is intentional, but many judges find it abusive.

The neg also repeatedly claimed that I did not address specific arguments of hers. I believe I did in R2, and now again more directly in R3. If I am mistaken, sh has my sincerest apologies, and I humbly ask that she reiterate more clearly.

At any rate, the neg has promised an outline of statist society. The advantages of anarchism will become more clear in juxtaposition.

(1) See round 2 for Law Merchant and Anglo Saxon Law citation
(2) http://www.observatori.org...
(3) http://mises.org...
(4) http://mises.org...
Danielle

Con

== Rebuttal ==

C1) Pro writes that under states individuals are unable to choose between providers of specific services. Why? I can walk to the vending machine and get a Pepsi, a Coke, a Snapple... In other words, I can choose between providers of specific services. It's true that some types of government limit choice, but not true that choice only exists in anarchy.

Moreover, there is no guarantee of variety in anarchy. If there is only 1 provider of a specific good or service, then your choice is limited to 1. So, if Pro's point here is that you need anarchy for choice, then this point fails considering I have choices and do not live in anarchy, and that anarchy does not guarantee choice. Further, he clarifies that anarchy is preferable simply because it maximizes free trade. However, he hasn't defended why a completely free market is the most preferable option, or that trade cannot exist under state governance.

C2) Pro again cites two examples of stateless law: Law Merchant (Lex Mercatoria) and Anglo Saxon Law. Lex Mercatoria existed in the medieval ages, and the A.S. law he described is over 1,000 years old. It is beyond naive to expect these outdated systems to be applicable in today's massive global economy. Trade has expanded far beyond a few merchants; this jurisdiction does not address issues regarding intellectual property, internet technology, corporations, legal battles and other problems.

Additionally, it is debatable whether the law was uniform in nature or applied equally to everyone who subordinated to it [1]. Ironically, these are some of the very same problems I brought up in the last round, so simply citing this example does not alleviate my concerns about this policy and in fact reiterates them. Linking me to other sources also does not address my concerns specifically; I could easily provide Pro with a bunch of links, but the purpose of this discussion is to have a debate in which we each have the same space to debate things in our own words.

Pro writes, "There's already a system in place for dealing with [problems]. The difference between these legal institutions and a State is they aren't formed aggressively." In other words, he thinks every state institution can exist as a non-state institution. Once again, I'll extend my questions regarding law enforcement, courts and payments. I would like to know how a non-aggressive (not necessarily violent) system would work. It seems to rely on things like boycotts which does not answer my presented question of morality as just one example.

Pro mentions, "There is likely to be more legal equality under anarchy because private security firms bear their own operating costs. State courts are easier to bribe because they socialize costs." However, private "security firms" have no one to answer to but themselves or the people funding them making them far easier to corrupt. On the contrary, a democratic intervention can make it so the legal systems in place - which are supposed to apply to all citizens - can be held accountable by the people they serve.

Suppose Pro accuses me of stealing. What would happen in his society? He could call the "police" or equivalent thereof, but what would they mean to me? What if I did not like them, fund them, etc? Why would they have any legal right whatsoever to apprehend or punish me? I fail to see how this "police" is different from the state police if I do not agree with the people in this organization or the power they have. Pro has failed to respond to my inevitable tyranny of the majority argument. He notes, "Laws can be effective even if some people don't agree with them." However how is that any different from the forceful denial of self-ownership that he vehemently attacks regarding the state? I am curious as to what "enforcement mechanisms" these groups like private police would have and why. I disagree that he's effectively outlined law enforcement and construction.

Pro continues, "Trade is a positive feedback loop. Destruction is a negative feedback loop." Destruction here refers to crime. We've already agreed that people are greedy by nature, and we have no reason to assume that people would suddenly start acting morally 100% of the time just because anarchy ensues. Here's another issue: Suppose 99% of the town believed murder was wrong. I'll let Pro explain how this society can condemn and/or punish murder before attacking his plan or explain how it is no different or better than "state coercion" or being forced to submit to an unchosen authority. In R1 Pro stated, "Attacking innocent people with the intent to manipulate them into a social arrangement moves the affected group out of anarchism." However, any law not universally agreed upon or supported by everyone commits the same offense.

Pro concludes "Neg's arguments boil down to 'you can't trade if you don't have law,' and my response is 'maybe, but you can have law without states.' First - you can trade without law. That's obvious. Second - You can have law without states, but (a) Pro has not sufficiently explained how creation of that law would emerge -- i.e. who deems something legal or illegal, or (b) how it's preferable to government law today. His argument is: If you want to do good business and turn a profit, you don't go around killing people or being a tool -- you compete with desierable goods and prices. This, of course, does not address what happens when people DO harm others

C3) In this point Pro concedes that anarchism doesn't guarantee peace. Peace is something most strive for; we have no reason to believe that anarchy is the ideal model for it. He notes, "Self ownership is a good thing. Universal self ownership requires anarchism." No support for this vs. the social contract theory has been offered by Pro so we have no reason to accept it.

Conclusion) Pro says, "She has to explain why people in anarchy can't have order even though there is a huge incentive to establish it." I never said they can't have order, but that I don't see how it's preferable to the state. He says there is "great historical precedent" for his system, but his 2 examples are out-dated and inadequate. The Somalia and currency arguments will be addressed next round.

== Proposition: Social Capitalism ==

Output is maximized through sound social management of the macroeconomy. Government regulation of markets can lead to superior economic outcomes as evidenced in government sponsorship of the internet, basic securities regulation and historical precedent [2]. Social capitalism validates traditional capitalism. The "invisible hand" should be free to the greatest extent possible to create market efficiencies for all participants. However, under SC, government regulation is required to protect the market from manipulation. The market must be protected so the invisible hand can work for maximum growth. Regulation should be as limited as possible so that Tier-One participants can generate the greatest GDP. However, regulation is needed to ensure that individuals do not exploit markets for personal gain at the expense of market growth and stability. [3].

In short, SC is a system of open markets, unambiguously regulated by an activist state, and one in which the state intervenes to reduce the greater inequalities that competitive markets will inevitably generate [4]. The state should probably be democratically elected, and though there are vast problems with democracy, I feel most can be remedied by a more educated and informed society as well as more applied principles of direct democracy (in addition to some other adjustments).

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] Ramirez, Steven. Fear and Social Capitalism: The Law and Macroeconomics of Investor Confidence. Washburn Law Journal, Vol. 42, pg. 31.
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] Rudd, Kevin. The Monthly. "The Global Financial Crisis."
Debate Round No. 3
Sieben

Pro

[NEG CASE]

Neg says SC should be democratic with education remedying any problems. I'll argue that even if people are informed, SC is inferior to anarchy.

1) Rational Irrationality

The chance that an individual's vote will decide an election are low (1), (2). If a voter studies to find the best policies they are wasting time. Patri Friedman: "in a 300,000,000 person Prisoner's Dilemma game, I think defection makes a lot of sense!" Everyone realizes that serious voting is a poor deal and votes irrationally. At best, this results in a lackluster state. More likely, special interests lobby hard against voter apathy and SC becomes oppressive corporatism.

In fact, democratic theory is essentially a Maoist "leap forward". Each individual cultivates his own opinions. There is no division of labor or specialization in this process.

2) The Myth of Limited Government

Hoppe: "[The State] is the ultimate arbiter in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself, and it allows no appeal above and beyond itself.". Democratic majorities serves as their own judge, hence no bill of rights or constitution can restrain state power. Indeed, democracy popularized "Unconditional Surrender", "Total War", and other morally fraught philosophies in public policy (3). The incentives of a monopoly legal system are so perverse that hoping for a benign outcome is Utopian.

3) Aff Permutation

It is unclear why SC has to be aggressive. I can simply run a variant of her ideal system by asking people to voluntarily join a democratic partnership. If others live in peace and wish no part, leave them be. The non-state SC is superior because it avoids many of the incentive problems in 2) and is consistent with my contentions.

4) Economy

Neg wants to guide the invisible hand through unspecified regulations. Why are libertarian rights are insufficient to this end?

Government simply crowds out the private sector (4) (5) (6). The benefits of state involvement in the internet are unclear. Many private internet prototypes exist(ed) (7) (8).

Summary)

Neg did exactly what I warned her not to do in the David Friedman quote. She assumed the political apparatus will automatically work the way she's drafted it. While it looks good on the surface, the actual incentives of SC lead to failure.

[AFF CASE]

C1) Neg thinks people have free trade under SC. First, taxes abridge free trade because labor is confiscated. Second, security markets are abridged because the state is a monopoly on final arbitration.

States are bad for "customers" like any other monopoly: high prices, poor service. In markets, division of labor and competition produce higher standards of living. A market in all services (anarchy) is taking the benefit of trade to its highest level.

Neg writes that anarchy could result in a monopoly. Without aggressive intervention, abusive monopolies are extremely unlikely. Even if only one road or electric line is being built, consumer representatives can still choose between firms who bid competitively on the contract.

This is an extremely large topic so I'll block further discussion by saying that even if monopoly were possible, the judge still takes pascal's wager (9) and votes for anarchy. Natural monopolies are at least not aggressive monopolies (states).

C2) Neg says the Law Merchant may have had equality problems. Regardless, the LM was superior to contemporary state law. If you follow her citation, you'll see many modern uses of LM. See the "international and common law" tab downwards.

Anglo Saxon Law is old, but its crime prevention was more sophisticated than anything we see now (10). Our readers might laugh when they realize they'd rather be living under ASL than USA criminal justice. Notwithstanding, why can't ASL evolve? The not-so-wild west is an example of more recent spontaneous law. Powell's paper shows that ancient customary law provides the majority of order in modern Somalia.

Technology shines favorably on a modern anarchy since the primary problems these systems faced were informational.

Neg wants to know how non-aggressive law will work. I don't understand why my examples aren't enough. Anarchic legal systems were complex and diverse. I want them to be complex and diverse because I don't think we've found the best rules*. What counts are incentives. Practicalities are trivial.

*Not a concession. We know some rules don't work; see my criticism of SC.

Neg worries private law firms are beholden only to their customers. In SC, the state is the majority. No organization answers to an objective code of law. Aggression is more likely under SC because the majority can spread costs to minorities while private firms bear their own costs. My citations show anarchic cooperation rather than mob exploitation. If anarchy appears majoritarian it is because people agree on so many laws.

If neg and I have a disagreement and call up their police agencies, then what? Fighting is expensive. They choose diplomacy. It differs from state police because consumers can choose between protectors. For reputation effects, enforcement is unlikely to act without the blessing of respected judicial opinion.

I actually think it would be better to simply purchase insurance against injury and let insurance firms resolve disputes peacefully. The check is insurance companies failing their obligations lose business.

Neg thinks that non-unanimous oppression of murderers is statism, but the agreed definition of aggression depends on libertarian rights. If anarchists use violence against a murderer they are not attacking an innocent person. I also already explained why unanimity doesn't matter. People can debate about rights and still live in anarchy.

How would law emerge? Well it emerged out of custom in most cases. The wild west source showed how private law emerged out of necessity. Again, many possibilities. The nuts and bolts don't matter. Incentives matter.

When you DO harm others, it runs counter to economic incentives. Aggression still happens under anarchy but there is economic incentive to find peace. See the pos/neg feedback loops of trade/crime. My citations show people have established peace in anarchy many times.

C3) Democracies have a pretty bad track record on peace as explained in critique of SC.

Peace is more likely under anarchy because actors bear their own costs/opportunity costs. You can spend billions on war OR trade and grow rich together. States spread the cost of war, reducing incentives towards peace.

Justice can't be established through states because aggression is unjust. Full self ownership and private property are incompatible with statism. Libertarian rights require anarchy.

C4) Extend. Anarchy has good long term stability.

Conclusion)

Neg concedes you can have order in anarchy, and should now understand why I prefer it over a state.

She is pessimistic because my examples of anarchy are old. I am optimistic because communication, information, and security costs are approaching nil. Additionally, the ridiculous amount of modern trade interdependence is the strongest peaceful force I can think of. It should be let work to the fullest extent.

(1)http://www.stat.columbia.edu...
(2)http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com...
(3)http://mises.org...
(4)http://en.wikipedia.org...
(5)http://blog.heritage.org...
(6)http://www.people.hbs.edu...
(7)http://www.isoc.org...
(8)http://www.zdnet.com...
(9) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(10) http://osf1.gmu.edu...
Danielle

Con

== Re: Pro's Criticisms of S-C ==

1) Pro's concern is that an individual's vote is of little importance in a democracy. I specified that more direct democracy was critical in the last round thereby eliminating Pro's concern of a pointless vote. This would require voting more often on more issues and making an individual's say in their community stronger by placing a higher emphasis on the governance of smaller city-states. Stronger, smaller communities would be stressed strengthening votes making neither of these objections an issue. Ancient Greece is an example of how citizens view their voting rights when they have more weight. In those city states a.k.a. the origins of social responsibility, it was considered a high privilege to be a voting citizen; a welcomed duty and honor of service to contribute in governing your own life and society [1].

2) Pro says that government cannot really be inhibited, and cites that democratic majorities serve as their own judge. First, there are ways of getting around tyranny of the majority [2]. Second, you'll notice that his proposition of anarchy essentially leads to the very same problems Pro cites. In his society, how are disputes solved? Answer - a system of police or courts chosen by citizens via selective financing. In other words, a vote is determined by currency. What people are willing to pay for becomes what rules. The only difference between Pro's proposed system and my own is that people have an equal say in government instead of their say being determined by how wealthy they are. Pro continues to literally refuse answering my questions of how issues are resolved because it has become increasingly obvious his proposition affords no benefits over mine.

3) Once again, the difference in my system vs. Pro's is that he wants law and government to be determined by where people are willing to put their money (in other words, the rich and powerful become dominant because they have more money to "vote" with, and the poor people have overwhelmingly less importance and say in government affairs). The criticism he presented of democracy - tyranny of the majority, as predicted - is not resolved in anarchy and in fact reinforced. My system gives everyone regardless of wealth a say in how society is governed.

For example, suppose that in a democracy 8 out of 10 voters wanted to make murder legal. Pro might complain that the majority is simply doing whatever the hell they want with legislation thereby being oppressive. However, if in an anarchy 8 out of 10 people were willing to pay into law enforcement that considered murder legally permissible, then indeed we reach the very same problem. The difference in our systems is that wealth is not a prerequisite for citizen involvement in mine, nor does it dictate morality or influence the law intended to govern all citizens.

4) Pro asks why libertarian rights are insufficient. In the last round I pointed out that output is maximized through sound social management of the macroeconomy which Pro did not contend. Indeed there are a plethora of historical examples which prove the monumental role government can have to effectively maintain and grow the economy [3]. I also explained that regulation is needed to ensure that individuals do not exploit markets for personal gain at the expense of market growth and stability. In other words, that people don't seek to make a quick buck at the expense of disrupting the entire system - which we saw happen with the easy credit conditions of banks, for example, which contributed to the current economic crisis [4].

== Re: Aff Case ==

C1) In R3 I asked Pro to prove my choices were limited under the state even though I pointed out my choice between Coke, Pepsi, Snapple, etc. He hasn't proven that trade cannot exist under state governance even though or just because people pay taxes. I also pointed out that there is no guarantee of variety in anarchy. This went unrefuted. He mentions that companies could bid on contracts, but this of course ignores the fact that Pro never responded to my question on who has the authority of drafting or upholding contracts and why.

His major complaint is that the state has a monopoly on arbitration, but he has yet to submit a feasible alternative. He simply keeps repeating that people will designate their own arbitrators (i.e. whomever they're willing to pay for the job) while ignoring the reality that this is possible in a (direct) democracy as well via votes. Pro advocates putting law making into the hands of the highest bidders. Also, we have absolutely no reason to accept that a judge would choose anarchy over my system in a simple nod to Pascal's wager.

C2) Pro acknowledges that LM had equity problems, but then states simply that his example is better without explaining why or arguing against my contention. The equity problem is precisely why I contend that his system is less humanitarian than mine, meaning he should not just gloss over this point. Pro also hasn't proven that A.S. or L. M. is applicable in current times; he simply asks "Why not" while avoiding addressing my presented concerns of things like the size of the market - a more than reasonable problem according to law philosophers who maintain that smaller markets are easier to govern [5]. Resolutions for issues like intellectual property have also been avoided by Pro.

We can infer that in Pro's system, he posits society will simply comply with "common law" standards in fear of being ostracized. I quote verbatim from his source - there would be "strong incentives for the guilty to yield to prescribed punishment due to the threat of social ostracism." Pro has yet to defend this moral standard despite my inquiry for him to do so in the past few rounds. Why is the threat of ostracism enough to punish someone for murder, and what if they're not ostracized? Yet again we have even more questions gone completely unanswered, and instead he responds with "I don't see why this is an issue - Here, check out these links."

Pro continues, "What counts are incentives. Practicalities are trivial... If anarchy appears majoritarian it is because people agree on so many laws." This couldn't be further than the truth. In Pro's system, incentive is driven by the market. Morality is dictated by money. If trade (currency) drives the market and the market determines law, then law is enacted by wealth. This is not necessarily majoritarian; it is just as likely that one person with a lot of money can have as much influence as a large group of people. It is Pro's burden to defend this probability; so far he hasn't.

Solving Disputes - Pro claims that if people buy insurance, insurance will resolve disputes and if they fail the result is them losing business. This proves my point. If I don't like the insurance company's answer in my case vs. Pro, they'll lose my business. If I give them more money than Pro, their incentive is to appease me, keep my business, and turn the highest profit possible regardless of what is right and wrong. Is this humanitarian?

C3) Pro doesn't like state aggression. Again *ANY* negative thing the state can do, a private firm can also do if they have the financial backing to do so! Pro continues to ignore this reality. The difference in democracy is that the aggressive individuals can be knocked out of power even by those not wealthy enough to drive them out of the market through "punishments" like boycotts. Just as people do not boycott Nike despite their uneasiness with sweatshops, we cannot rely on people's financial interests to dictate right from wrong.

C4) The only thing Pro said in C4 was that anarchy was long-term. This needed to be extended? I can simply say the same thing about my system.

[1] http://tinyurl.com...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://tinyurl.com...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Sieben

Pro

**Democracy**

Neg thinks smaller states are more functional, but even tiny elections are decided by no less than 100 votes. This is a prisoner's dilemma problem. Individual votes are essentially worthless. Each individual finds serious voting fruitless. The net effect is system failure.

As I cited before, flippant voting popularized the philosophies of "total war" and "unconditional surrender".

Moreover, democracy advantages special interests. If a firm agitates for a law that will extract $1 from every citizen, it is not worth spending an hour of everyone's time to identify and organize against the policy.

In short, democracy externalizes costs to a captive body of "consumers" who can't fight back. Their vote has a low chance of mattering and the cost of motivating an informed majority is prohibitive. Special interests win repeatedly and create net harm to society. Examples include the banking industry, who contributes to both parties (1) and enjoys extraordinary special privileges (2). See also steel (3), medical services (4), the prison and military industrial complexes (5) (6), and unions (7).

**Checks and Balances**

Neg wants limited statism through rules/constitutions. These checks will fail because whoever is responsible for interpretation or enforcement will simply act in their own interests, whether it is a king, majority, or coalition of parties.

Accommodation between coalitions does not protect anyone outside political cliques. States entail making some entity judge in its own case. I reiterate: "The incentives of a monopoly legal system are so perverse that hoping for a benign outcome is Utopian."

Democracy really pre-defines a rightless underclass while leaving the majority in anarchy, except the majority govern themselves through the impotent process of voting. Its not much to brag about.

She mocks anarchic ostracism, but it is painfully obvious that she doesn't know how this worked in practice. The kind of "ostracism" under anarchism was total denial of legal services, an excessively dangerous position to be in. If she were at all familiar with anarchy in practice she wouldn't be pretending she could get away with murder.

Ostracism aside, force is consistent with anarchism if organized non-aggressively. I just have a personal bias towards nonviolence. Apologies for this character fault.

**The Power of the Wealthy**

In democracy, the power of the rich magnifies. State actors are easier to co-opt than their anarchic counterparts because they socialize costs. Anarchic actors bear their own costs.

In anarchy, a very wealthy man who bribes judges also finds that no one wants to deal with him. Under a democratic state, citizens have no ability to disassociate and are bound to this kind of exploitation. Statism advantages the rich. Let's take her toy problem:

If 8 in democracy want to make murder legal, they spread costs to the other 2. This socialization of costs makes it easier for them to murder. If 8 in anarchy want to murder, they bear their own costs. It is more expensive and therefore more difficult.

Or take the insurance example. She can pay for more rights but she pays out her own pocket rather than the common stock. Statism forces members to pay for their own exploitation.

Bizarre hypotheticals aside, wealth in real anarchy is predicated on trade and division of labor, which in turn presuppose property rights. So any anarchic society will need a good foundation of egalitarian law before significant wealth emerges. The historical examples all look like this.

I also challenge the idea that anarchic legal systems will be organized exclusively through markets. The historical cases of anarchy show that laws were enforced through community participation rather than through individual payments.

**Justice**

No theory of justice validates an aggressive monopoly on law. Aggression means attacking innocent people. Monopoly means doing it repeatedly. THIS is true lawlessness. A non-aggressive non-monopolistic system is required by justice, and is by definition anarchy.

**Incentives**

The only reasonable way to prosperity is division of labor and trade. These require property rights, so there is incentive to produce this legal system. Once established, people in anarchy become dependent on eachother's labor and therefore dependent upon mutual recognition of rights. Trade is a positive feedback loop.

Individuals might also cheat or steal from society. There is an incentive for society to deter this behavior through prisons, fines, ostracism, etc. Society is always at odds with criminals, and therefore becomes dependent upon their punishment. Crime is a negative feedback loop.

**Monopoly and Choice**

Without aggressive intervention, monopolies are unlikely. Everyone is free to provide any service. Barriers to entry are constantly reduced through improving technology and further division of labor. Any problems with the market can be handled peacefully.

Compare this to a state: an aggressive monopoly on legal services. There is no choice in arbitration. Monopolies are always bad for consumers. The state further abridges free trade through taxation.

**History**

Neg has two very trivial arguments here. First, she thinks the LM might have not been perfectly egalitarian. The LM was superior to contemporary state law, meeting the resolution's "on balance" clause. LM could also be reformed without attacking third parties.

Secondly, she discounts my examples because they're old. The LM is still in use today. ASL is more sophisticated than modern law in many respects. Somalian customary law and the not-so-wild-west show more modern examples of anarchic law.

Still, anarchy would be easier to implement in modern times. Technology disperses information at lightspeed. With more trade interdependence, the incentives towards peace are magnified enormously. War should have ended a hundred years ago.

The significance of these citations is to show how anarchy COULD work. The who/where question has many possible answers. Some future anarchist society may come up with a new amazing set of rules. What counts is the powerful incentive to establish peace and order in anarchy.

**(non)State Capitalism**

SC is a policy, not a theory of government. Government is a WAY of choosing policy, as is anarchy. Her burden is to show policies must be chosen through an aggressive monopoly. SC is a red herring.

As I've shown, democratic states will fail to choose good policies and can never be just. Regulation need not violate libertarian rights. If SC policies are worthwhile, people in anarchy will figure out ways to provide them. See "incentives".

Democratic socialist groups are compatible with anarchism if their membership is voluntary. This debate is not capitalism versus democracy. This is aggression versus peace.

**Closing**

I started this debate because there are many sophisticated arguments for states. TheLwerd argues in farfetched what-ifs that were trivial for even medieval anarchies. She tries to derail the round by bringing up sweatshops and the evils of capitalism. This is not about capitalism. It is about anarchism and statism, both of which may be democratic and social.

Anarchism means opposition to aggression, organization without attacking innocent people, and relying on social and market forces. Mankind can be better than barbary.

The universal recognition of individual rights is a prerequisite of justice. Voluntary markets and social organizations produced lasting peace many times throughout history. Modern interdependence is unprecedentedly pronounced. Anarchy has a better chance of working now more than ever.

(1) http://tinyurl.com...
(2) http://tinyurl.com...
(3) http://tinyurl.com...
(4) http://tinyurl.com...
(5) http://tinyurl.com...
(6) http://tinyurl.com...
(7) http://tinyurl.com...
Danielle

Con

== CLOSING ARGUMENTS ==

Pro says voting is ultimately a prisoner's dilemma. This is false and Pro did not prove this in any way. There have been extremely close elections throughout history with a margin of victory less than 0.1% [1]. My supposition of a far more direct democracy in much smaller towns negates Pro's contention that democracy is useless. Further, Pro says flippant voting led to philosophies he deems bad, yet once again this ignores the fact that complete anarchy has its problems too.

Example: In 1997 Albanian citizens rioted and demanded reimbursement from their gov. Their military lost control; the result was half of Albania falling under the control of rebels and criminal gangs where chaos and violence ensued [2]. So, thus far we see Pro saying my system wouldn't work because "people's votes wouldn't count" which I've refuted, and me saying Pro's system won't work because of problems of concentrated power, and the tendency for people to not act perfectly rational and allow greed to influence their decisions - also unrefuted. Thus so far we have every reason to accept my position over Pro's.

Next, Pro continues to assert the possibility that because anarchism worked in the medieval ages well over 1,000 years ago, that it would withstand current standards of we defined and defend property, utilize the economy, etc. However this isn't entirely true since our economy is not only about producing goods and services like in the past, but now includes entire occupations generated around manipulating capital such as wealth via collateral and inferred risk. Pro has not convinced me that his system is still applicable, and if it were (and preferable) then I'm wondering why it has never been successfully enacted in history - including Pro's very own L.M. example (more about that later).

Questions about Somalia's stability are still rampant despite Pro's intention to portray it as a perfectly civilized and well off society. Somalia is one of the poorest, most violent, least stable and deadliest countries anywhere on Earth. It suffers from severe hunger, daily violence, and virtually no authority to carry out the kind of policing that could effectively disrupt pirate and other criminal operations [3]. This is the BEST example Pro has continuously cited to base his "humanitarian" system on, while my system can best be demonstrated by Switzerland which has among the best ratings on people's quality of life [4] - far contrary to the conditions that plague Somalia and most would find less than humanitarian. Switzerland and places like it also challenge (negate?) his rash assertion that democracy can never be good or prosperous.

Pro writes, "If she were at all familiar with anarchy she wouldn't be pretending she could get away with murder." Unfortunately it's painfully obvious to the readers that people use their wealth, power and prestige to get away with murder all the time -- such as mafioso who are infamous for paying off cops and law enforcement to continue their illegal practices [5]. How this different in any way whatsoever from what would happen in Pro's system? The mobsters would still have all of the legal protections Pro claims they would lose via ostracism, and continue to profit via illegal activity (and getting away with it) as they do now. While it happens today as well, it would be more prevalent in anarchy because the (legal) system would be easier to manipulate through bribes and other immoral practices. This is because there is less likely to find out about the bribe with decentralized and scattered law enforcement that could gain or lose power theoretically on a daily basis under Pro's system.

Pro continues, "In anarchy, a very wealthy man who bribes judges also finds that no one wants to deal with him." Once again my last source notes how this is blatantly negated considering thieves bribe judges all the time, and not just one, but multiple judges who seek to specifically become involved in certain cases just to make a profit through dirty practices [6]. So, here we see that Pro's point has again been negated. Ostracism does not work, and both of our systems sustain the same risks. However, my system is preferable because there is less chances of corruption. This is ensured by keeping governments small and local with citizens more actively engaged and aware of political going-ons. If Pro wishes to use ancient examples to prove his system is feasible, then my example of the Greeks absolutely demonstrates the applicability of mine.

In response to my example, Pro notes "If 8 in democracy want to make murder legal, they spread costs to the other 2. This socialization of costs makes it easier for them to murder. If 8 in anarchy want to murder, they bear their own costs. It is more expensive and therefore more difficult." I'm not sure how this answers my questions. If murder were legal, what "costs" would people have to bear? There would be no costs and in fact the opposite of costs considering people would not be expected to respond considering murder's legal status. How would it be more expensive to snap someone's neck if we lived in anarchy as opposed to democracy? I'm not sure how this really addresses my concerns at all.

Pro contends that "historical cases of anarchy show that laws were enforced through community participation rather than through individual payments." However neither of Pro's presented systems (L.M. or A.S.) was enforced outside of market realms. For instance, Lex Mercatoria "applied merchant customs only if they were 'certain' in nature, consistent with law and in existence since time immemorial" [7]. In other words, this example which Pro clings to and says proves his anarchic system can thrive was only permitted to exist within the confines of a greater, more powerful state. As such, this system does not even prove feasibility without the existence of the state in the first place, considering its customary law was designed with an already more powerful law binding system.

Regarding justice, Pro says "No theory of justice validates an aggressive monopoly on law." This is a manipulation of my system considering the people are the ones who control the "monopoly." In both of our systems *the people* determine law. My system does not advocate or encourage random aggression. Considering I advocate a non-aggressive, non-monopolistic system, this point should also be considered negated.

Pro advocates for competing government (law firms) whereas I am advocating the same thing except people compete by running for office -- not by letting wealth alone determine who wins authority. Once again the same exact problem of one falling under the authority of those they do not want to be in power is just as possible if not more probably under anarchy. Also, I've negated Pro's point that there is a monopoly on arbitration considering new arbitrators would be determined via election. In Pro's system, citizens would be powerless without wealth, and he hasn't answered how that is humanitarian.

Pro acknowledges the necessity of property rights and so do I. His argument that SC is a policy and not a theory of gov. is an abusive argument (made only in the last round) and subsequently I don't have the space to respond. However, I maintain that this has not been a debate about capitalism. By bringing up sweatshops, I proved that people tend to choose what's in their best interest -- not necessarily what they believe is moral. That's it.

Conclusion: The only difference between Pro's proposed system and mine is that Pro's system is far more privy to become corrupt and dictated by wealth which I've expressed is anti-humanitarian. Pro never addressed or responded to this issue. Further, I have negated all of his criticisms of my system, though mine of his have either been ignored or insufficient.

Sources: http://www.debate.org...
Debate Round No. 5
268 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by donald.keller 3 years ago
donald.keller
The voting on this debate was horrible... Almost all the votes were vote-bombs and counter-vote-bombs. Good work Danielle, I enjoyed reading.
Posted by Danielle 6 years ago
Danielle
Not that it's any of your business, but we are not a couple. I'm a lesbian. Thanks for playing.
Posted by MP519Rovin 6 years ago
MP519Rovin
"Anarchism is by far the most idealistic of political ideologies." For an interracial couple kissing for a profile picture on freakin DEBATE.ORG??? Yes, it is. 'Meh...I don't like politics...'
Posted by MP519Rovin 6 years ago
MP519Rovin
Hey you two, no one gives a rat's @$$
Posted by nonantianarchist 6 years ago
nonantianarchist
Are you challenging me to a debate?!
Posted by TheAtheistAllegiance 6 years ago
TheAtheistAllegiance
Well, while you're watching male vs. donkey porn on your Dell, you can also check out my profile photos on your mac and continue to obsess over them.

http://www.debate.org...

It's a win-win!
Posted by nonantianarchist 6 years ago
nonantianarchist
I liked the Terry who liked showing his chest to strangers on the internet better :(
Posted by TheAtheistAllegiance 6 years ago
TheAtheistAllegiance
So, you're using two different computers for this?! My god child, have you no life?!!?!
Posted by nonantianarchist 6 years ago
nonantianarchist
I couldn't log in and out thaaaat quickly, Terryboy.
Posted by TheAtheistAllegiance 6 years ago
TheAtheistAllegiance
Go make some more sock accounts and have another conversation with yourself.
65 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by NiamC 3 years ago
NiamC
SiebenDanielleTied
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 Hierocles 3 years ago
Hierocles
SiebenDanielleTied
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 
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
SiebenDanielleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: re-re-re counter. This debate has so many bombs and counter bombs, that it should just be left to the abyss.
Vote Placed by daytonanerd 5 years ago
daytonanerd
SiebenDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB (WallStreetAtheist)
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
SiebenDanielleTied
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:23 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree con as it depends. When it comes to sources pro had many credible ones, as well as more. When arguments I think con had stronger rebuttals and main arguments. She proved anarchism breeds greedy behaviors (round 1) and this stood, and greedy =\= Humanitarian, in this sense at least. Con won.
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
SiebenDanielleTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: counter vote bomb
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
SiebenDanielleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con proved that most of Pros points were incorrect
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
SiebenDanielleTied
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 Tidin 6 years ago
Tidin
SiebenDanielleTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
SiebenDanielleTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00