The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Simulated Presidential Debate: Liberalism v. Anarcho-Capitalism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/16/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,071 times Debate No: 73578
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)




This is based on @walle_ras' simulated presidential debates, wherein one takes a stance and a set of ideologies, and campaigns for them. The debate is limited to my ideology of democratic liberalism vs. Con's ideology of anarcho-capitalism.

Full Resolution

Simulated Presidential Debate: Liberalism vs. Anarcho-Capitalism

BoP is shared.


Liberalism - "... a political philosophy or worldview founded on the ideas of equality and liberty." [1]

Anarcho-Capitalism - "... a political philosophy which advocates elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignity, private property, and open markets." [2]

Debate Structure

Round 1: Pro presents stance, Con presents stance and defends it
Round 2: Pro defends stance and rebuts Con's stance, Con defends stance and rebuts Pro's stance
Round 3: Pro defends stance and rebuts Con's stance, Con defends stance, rebuts Pro's stance and concludes
Round 4: Pro defense stance, rebuts Con's stance and concludes, Con waives


Pro: Social Liberalism, Regulated Capitalism, Federal Reserve, bicameral legislature, federal constitutional presidential republic system of governance, indirect democracy with partial centralization, strong animal welfare policies, deep ecology, environmentalism, wildlife protection act [similar to those of India and Bangladesh], limits and regulations on cosmetic animal testing, flat tax

Con: abortion, gold standard, minimum wage, death penalty





I am glad to be debating you.

First of all you have misstated Anarchy. I don't want a minimum wage. Minimum wage is an economically stifling way to make politicians be able to buy flat screen tvs without feeling bad. I say to you, the American people, that us Anarchists are con the government messing with your lives. We want a world without government.
That is my ideal, but is not what I will do. Unless I pass an amendment I will not break the constitution. That is what my opponent does not get. The constitution cannot be broken, it need to be followed. While, I do want less power to the government I will achieve this by passing AMENDMENTS, not executive orders. I disagree with the constitution but that doesn't mean I can use it as toilet paper like my opponent's party has.

I beg of you to think, America, who do you want, someone who swears to follow a law that he disagrees with because you, America, desire said law or some one who, if he disagrees with the law, will ignore it.

Thank you, Walle Ras 2016

Rules: No sources

No mud slinging

No strikes are given but please penalise people who break the rules just like it should be.
Debate Round No. 1


No, when I said "Con", I meant I was Con minimum wage. That was my stance, not yours. You have misunderstood me. I am against a minimum wage, so that was my stance. So you still have to present your stance. I waive this round to allow my opponent to present their stance.

Sources are allowed, as I set up this debate.


Pro: The Constitution, Gold standard. Guns, Natural Law, the death penalty, a system of Government where nobody has power aka Chapitalarchy,

Con: Political Law, Abortion(Banned by Natural Law), government, OSHA, EPA, Social Security, Medicare/Medicade, IRS, Income tax, Welfare

I support the constitution because it is the law of the land and I cannot and will not betray the voters trust as to not follow the Constitution. I will pass AMENDMENTS if I was to change it, not executive orders.

Is that what you want? Ok then let the debate begin.
Debate Round No. 2


I am unable to find a viable source that refers “chapitalarchy” in any way whatsoever. The only three websites with a mention of “chapitalarchy” are:


In both these links, “chapitalarchy” is mentioned only by my opponent.

Con was also supposed to defend their position, but Con has only presented their stance, violating the debate structure.


C1) Lack of Enforcement

An anarcho-capitalist state will not have a government, so how will the “Pro” section be enforced? A death penalty, etc. can only be delivered via. lynching, as there is no power to enforce or administrate the country. In a republic, all my administrative policies can be enforced. How will the Constitution be upheld in a state of anarchy? The small government needs taxes to enforce policies such as the death penalty, and these minute taxes against the flat tax will absolutely cripple administration and result in the smallest imaginable government. This viewpoint may first be viewed as utopian, until it becomes either (a) anarchy, or (b) oligarchy, with emergence of Reactionary ideologies and absolutely no enforcement. “Chapitalarchy” also does not fit the definition of “anarcho-capitalism”, and is, therefore, against the terms of this debate. It is impossible to legislate anything in a state of anarchy.

C2) Gold Standard

CIIA. The Gold Standard Restricts Preventing Deflation

Under a gold standard, central banks cannot expand credit at a fast enough rate to offset deflationary forces. [1.] Mainstream economists believe that economic recessions can be largely mitigated by increasing the money supply during economic downturns. [2. Mankiw, N. Gregory (2002). Macroeconomics (5th ed.). Worth. pp. 238–255. ISBN 0-324-17190-0.] A gold standard means that the money supply will be determined by the gold supply and hence monetary policy can no longer be used to stabilize the economy. [3.]

CIIB. The Gold Standard is Deflationary

The above graph shows the CPI inflation of the United States under the gold standard from 1919 to 1933. The deflation was massive, causing a drop in inflation by 25% in 12 years. I shall now demonstrate why the gold standard is deflationary.

To increase its money supply, the government must mine more gold. … Limited gold supply stifles economic growth and causes deflation. … According to the World Gold Council, annual production of gold is about 2,500 metric tons or 80 million troy ounces. This implies that world GDP cannot grow more than about $80 billion (at $1000/oz), had we been on the gold standard today. Thus, the gold standard would cause a severe deflation in the world economy.” [4.]

Therefore, because of the limitations of gold, the world GDP’s growth would have been limited to $80 billion. This severe deflation will result in economic shutdowns, especially in an anarchic state.

Thus, the gold standard is irrational.

Defense of Ideologies

D1) Federal Reserve

In a state of anarchy, the Federal Reserve will be abolished. Now I shall state why the Federal Reserve is essential in maintaining US economy.

Without the Federal Reserve, there will not be any monetary stability. The lack of stability will crash down all the positives of maintaining a gold standard. Today, the Fed has ensured virtually no deflation since the gold standard, and has kept an inflation rate of 1-2%. This economic stability allows for the sustenance of American trade policy, etc.

Monetary stimulus, used by the Fed, is essential, free and can be reversed easily. As President, I will be against the fiscal stimulus used by the Fed, which is minor, has no major effect in increasing inflation or maintaining stability, and nonetheless is spent stimulus.

D2) Executive Orders vs. Constitutional Amendments

Constitutional amendments should be made with approval of the people. In an anarchy, the power to amend the Constitution allows for the gradual enforcement of oligarchy, i.e. one person having slight power above other people and there being no restricting body, e.g. Congress. As this is a simulated presidential debate, there has to be a President as part of the small government, who will assume virtually dictatorial powers, as a small government of such small size cannot declare elections, etc.

Executive orders, on the other hand, are not as omnipotent as constitutional amendments; the President will be limited by a directly elected legislative body, i.e. Congress.

D3) Flat Tax

My next major proposition is the introduction of a flat tax in the United States limited by a “poverty line” income. One cannot call for any taxation whatsoever without a government, halting administration and construction of infrastructure [which alone can be handled by a system of direct democracy, while qualifying the nation as anarchic].

Simplicity is considered a significant benefit of the flat tax system. One tax rate makes for easy computation by the Internal Revenue Service and straightforward payments from taxpayers. Because the flat tax taxes only one income, it is easier to understand and to report. Taxpayers save the financial cost of complying with current IRS regulations, which often includes lawyers, accountants and other resources.
The flat tax remains a popular idea in part because it eliminates double taxation. It removes the section of the tax code that is biased against the formation of capital. It eliminates the death tax, capital gains tax and double taxation of savings and dividends. Families and individuals are not required to report dividends, interest or other business-related income; this income is taxed at the business level. The flat tax makes it unnecessary to pay interest, dividends and other business tax at the individual levels.
A flat tax employs territorial taxation, which is when the government only taxes income that is generated within national borders. In the global economy, taxes remain a critical component of business; countries with low-taxes benefit from jobs and capital. A good tax policy is important to generate revenue for business and also because the penalty for a poorly received tax system on a global scale may be substantial and long-term. The flat tax eliminates global taxation and allows the United States to compete more evenly in global markets. Fairness remains a lauded feature of the flat tax. For example, a taxpayer who makes $5,000 pays the same tax rate as someone who earns $500,000. The taxpayer making $500,000 pays more taxes simply because the income is greater, however, this taxpayers pays an equal percent to the $5,000 taxpayer. This tax system does not discriminate based on income level; everyone pays the same percent of income.” [5.]

“In January 2001, Russia introduced a fairly dramatic reform of its personal income tax, becoming the first large economy to adopt a flat tax. The Tax Code of 2001 replaced a conventional progressive rate structure with a flat tax rate of 13 percent. Over the next year after the reform, while the Russian economy grew at almost 5% in real terms, revenues from the personal income tax increased by over 25% in real terms. Besides this revenue yield performance, advocates also have credited the flat tax with beneficial changes in the real side of the economy. The Russian experience would appear to have been so successful that many other countries have followed suit with their own flat rate income tax reforms, and an increasing number of countries around the world are considering the adoption of a flat rate income tax.”[6.]

Therefore, a flat tax will be helpful in maintaining the economy, and will be liked by the people.


Ultimately, under my administration, the United States shall retain its state on democracy, and will not maintain irrational economic systems such as the gold standard. Con’s economic strategies will result in immense deflation and economic crisis, versus my stable maintenance of the Fed to ensure proper economic administration of the United States.


Ladies and gentlemen. My opponent does not realize several facts of Anarchy. First of all it does not ban enforcing of law. During the anarchal beginnings of this Earth law was administered by the people. Judges were respected members of the community. No government was necessary for the people worked to enforce morals upon each other. If some one murdered they would be dragged in front of the judge and he was guilty they would hang him. No government necessary.

I appreciate my opponent doing the necessary research on chapitalarchy. It is a system of government of my own invention that takes the epic things from all systems of government and adds them up. We already have a system of government delegated by the constitution. My opponent thinks that I would violate the constitution for my purposes just as he would. No I will not.

The Gold standard is good because it can save our economy. Fiat money cannot create a stable economy. What I suggest is not irrational from an Austrian point of view. My opponent is a Keynesian and therefore cannot be trusted when it comes to the economy. The Keynesians have caused every economic disaster in history. They say that spending is good for the economy. Balderdash, it poisons the economy with irresponsibility. For more information, please look at econ stories on youtube.

Should the government mint and print money? No. It used to be that private companies printed and minted money. Some was trusted and some wasn't. It was capitalism at it's highest. Prosperity is affirmed when you can pick and choose which money is the most stable. Gradually all but four or five of the best money will no longer be accepted and stability is assured. (Whatever Happened to Penny Candy, Uncle Eric)

We can debate flat tax all we want and we will still agree. You made a case for me as well because I agree that a flat tax should be temporarily implemented until the U.S. government can be supported on tariffs and alcohol taxes again, like the founding fathers wished. (Whatever Happened to Justice, Uncle Eric)

D2 is irrelevant as I am saying that Executive orders cannot do as much as our current president wishes. He is saying that I would be a dictator despite me clearly saying that I will follow the constitution unless congress pases an amendment. It is the law of the land and if you elect me I will take my oath seriously and defend all parts of the constitution.

Walle Ras for a prosperous future, for lower prices, for a better tomorrow.
Debate Round No. 3


Note 1) My opponent seems to think I'm a Keynesian, which I'm not, and it does not effect my views of the gold standard.

Note 2) Without government, who decides the laws? If the people do, then it is not an anarcho-capitalist state - it is a direct democracy. Con seems to be confusing direct democracy and anarchy. Anarchy is basically a state of absolutely no government, no state, no "judges". It vouches for complete privatization of property.

R1) Cooperation of the People

This form of "chapitalarchy" (which was created by my opponent) would require complete and total cooperation of the people. Who ensures cooperation? Elimination of the state means elimination of the Constitution by definition. Privatization would require people to recognize judges if they elected my opponent.

R2) Enforcement

Anarchy, by definition, vouches for elimination of the state and complete privatization of the law, i.e. people can do what they want (more or less). How will you enforce a ban on abortion without government? And, more importantly, there will be no police force, etc. to investigate for major cases such as murder. It will become a world with no rules, and the Constitution is already defied in a state of anarchy. How will you uphold the Constitution without a government body? My opponent says the people will take on the responsibility - that is not anarchy, that is direct democracy, similar to the Swiss government.

R3) Amendments

Amendments are changes made to the Constitution. My opponent contradicts himself by saying he will not change the Constitution, and says he will pass amendments. The executive orders that I vouch for are wanted by many of the people.

R4) Gold Standard

Con has not demonstrated why a gold standard will help the economy. Below is a graph that shows deflation under a gold standard:

CPI Inflation Under a Gold Standard

As clearly seen, there was 15% deflation under the gold standard from 1919 to 1933. Below is a graph that shows the rises and drops in American economic inflation:

As seen above, there was major deflation (15%) when the United States was under the gold standard. Thus, the gold standard is directly deflationary. I have also demonstrated how the gold standard stops preventing methods in economic crisis. Gold mining also effects the natural environment.

My opponent mentions stability. I would like to not that the current system is 23 times more stable than the gold standard. As shown, the Fed keeps 0 deflation and an inflation rate of 1-2%, allowing for major stability. As proposed, I will stop the economic stimulus that does not help the economy in any way used by the Fed, allowing for further stability.

R5) Private Minting

This complete capitalism of private printing, et cetera will cripple the monetary system, and the USD's monetary value will drop internationally. A drop in the USD monetary value means a drop in the stock market, forcing a global economic crisis due to the value of the USD being the basis of most sovereign states. This global economic crisis will result in wastage of resources, and, eventually, wars over oil, energy, etc.

R6) Flat Tax

How will a flat tax be implemented in anarchy? Taxation will be impossible because of unlimited capitalism. This forceful, weak anarcho-capitalist society will crumble if taxation begins; therefore, there can't be any taxes whatsoever, as taxes cannot be collected by private bodies.


The "prosperous" future of Walle Ras will keep the Constitution the same with no changes whatsoever, except going into a Reactionary status by rapidly shifting the government into anarchy. The President becomes a figurehead, and Congress does not exist, hence allowing for no amendments. Taxation is impossible and money is privatized, resulting in stock market crashes, monetary value drop, and global economic crisis, which will lead to war and bloodshed. Elect Tejretics for a truly prosperous, better future.



Round waived. But vote for me.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by walle_ras 2 years ago
That is what I thought. The liberals have done a good job.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
The rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services is rising and purchasing power falling along with it.
Posted by walle_ras 2 years ago
Define Inflation
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
Of course zero-inflation is the best. But it's very hard to achieve. The gold standard would cause deflation, not inflation.
Posted by walle_ras 2 years ago
No inflation is best. It is the boom and the bust which I am afraid of. Inflation caused the Great Depression.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
@walle_ras, inflation is cancer unless it's limited to 1-2%, which is the exact stability mentioned by me in the debate. But deflation is WORSE than inflation, and the gold standard causes deflation. Furthermore, it hinders the stability of the economy. A Federal Reserve can keep inflation at bay, like it's doing now. The Fed is keeping inflation at 1-2% which is fairly stable. Keynesian economics also says inflation is cancer.
Posted by walle_ras 2 years ago
@tejretics The Austrian School of thought says that Inflation is a cancer. I am desperate. If you provide evidence for something else that can stop inflation besides privatising money or the Gold Standard. Then I am all ears.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
@walle_ras, Austrian economics had nothing to do with the debate. Nor did Austria. The gold standard is economic suicide regardless of economic thought.
Posted by walle_ras 2 years ago
I mourn that people voted against me due to the fact that I am an Austrian.

I will change this country. LET US FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION!
Posted by Kaynes 2 years ago
How sad, I am not allowed to vote, really a shame...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: This really didn't feel like much of a debate. Pro presented his case case and defended it using warrants and evidence, as well as attacking the vague case presented by Con. Con presented his in a way that remains unclear to the end, and only defended and attacked using minimal assertion in R3. Con seems to take for granted that his case is great, and makes little effort to present how to works and what truly makes it great. Pro just does more, often showcasing faults in Con's case simply by showing evidence that contradicts Con's assertions. I'll take the devil I understand over the devil I don't. Based on that, Pro has made the more convincing case, and therefore wins arguments. Regarding conduct, Con's relatively weak adherence to the rules of the debate forces me to give that point to Pro. Regarding sources, Con only presents a single, unverifiable source without page numbers. Pro did far more to provide support for his points, ergo he wins those points as well.