Simulated Presidential Debate
Con abortion, gay marriage, and excessive law.
Pro Capitalism, natural law, and the bill of rights.
Con: Abortion, support going back to 1949 levels of regulation, gold standard, minimum wage laws
Pro: Capitalism--with some regulations, death penalty, guns, small government, Federal Reserve, amnesty
Premise I: What is anarchism
- Anarchism, and specifically my opponent supporting anarcho capitalism, means that he supports there being zero government. Capitalist institutions, he must contend (based upon his pro capitalism and ideology anarchist) that all government intervention is bad.
- "Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism, market anarchism, private-property anarchism, libertarian anarchism) is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property, and open markets (laissez-faire capitalism)." (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
- I must note his opinions of banning abortion and gay marriage are statist opinions and are contradictory to anarcho capitalism.
I must also note the largest ideologies are conservatism and moderate, followed by liberals. So, if this were an actual election, my opponent would be trailing pretty severely (http://www.gallup.com...). This debate should be voted on normally, I presume, based upon arguments. My arguments will be:
C1) Death Penalty
- Get tough on crime
- No government is crazy, plus, a president anarchist makes no sense
- Reduce regulation, but no regulation is insane
- Government has an important role when it comes to capitalism
C3) Social issues
- Opposing gay marriage is silly. My opponent must substantiate these claims.
- What does "excessive" law even mean? And you should oppose *every* law, or you are contradicting your position
- Con abortion is good. But what would the exceptions be?
- How would you legislate abortion and gay marriage? Federally? It is on your platform--so it means you *will* do something about it. But isn't that excessive law? Isn't that against the 10th amendment?
Just making sure the debate had some format to continue. Good luck.
Ladies and Gentleman, today america is facing a crisis. Our debt is rising, and the United States government is regulating everything in sight. Common sense is dying and my opponent wants it to further dye. He continues to support regulation of the economy. My opponent has asked me to define excessive law. Excissive law is law that strays from natural law. For example all of the employ rights laws. With a true and unaltered chapitalarchist society that would not be a problem as workers would just work elsewhere. And if other businesses wanted to have workers they would increase wages and or safety.
Natural Law has two laws, do all you have agreed to do, and do not encroach on peoples persons and their property. If people followed these laws the world would not need government. But sadly, a government is here and unlike the liberals I will just shrink the U.S. government to the size it was in 1789. Before bureaucracy bogged it down. I will interpret it like Thomas Jefferson did, if it isn't here you can't do it.
About the death penalty, it is the ultimate punishment in this society. And why not the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime? Also, why do we even have jail time? Jail is eating up our countries money. 70.7 billion dollars is spent on keeping inmates in jail, says solitude canyon. It would be much cheaper and more humane to bring back flogging. Give someone a half dozen and send them on their way. Don't let them rot in jail. Not only that the victim has to pay for the criminal to have air conditioning and internet. Preposterous!
The death penalty is sad. I don't like to think of any one getting killed. But by punishing this one man many people are saved. John McRae was in for the death penalty for his murder of an 8 year old boy. In 1971 he was paroled. He murdered three other little boys. John Miller killed an infant. He was put in for life. He was paroled and killed his parents. This is just two of many. Please read this website, http://www.wesleylowe.com....
In conclusion, the entire justice system is over bearing. It punishes crimes that do not exist and leaves murder un-punished. But I have a question. John Miller is a horrible person. Why are not abortion clinics treated like murderers?
We are in a crisis, that much is true. But the question remains: is anarchy the answer? In a world of chaos my opponent believes zero regulation, no governing bodies, and chaos are the way to fix the economy and our country. But this is insane. There would be no rule of law. No government to enforce contracts and prevent abuse. Both the rich and the poor would be at risk of destruction through reckless anti-governmental policy.
His opinions are contradictory. He wants to prohibit gay marriage and abortion but also opposes government intervention. Aren't these positions contradictory? How would he enforce his opinions--which he puts so blatantly on his platform--without a government? His opinions are contradictory and it really proves the fact that anarchy is not the way to go forward. His own opinions require the existence of a government.
I am not some regulatory hawk as explained by the anarchist candidate. I support going back to 1949 levels of regulation. Had we stayed at those levels, the economy would be huge, 3 times larger than today in fact. I agree that excessive regulation is bad--both the World Bank, George Mason Mercatus Center, and pretty much every economist agrees (http://mercatus.org...). But zero regulation is insane. The Glass-Steagal act is one of the acts which is required for any market economy. The repeal of this regulation led to the 2009 Financial Crisis (http://www.usnews.com...). I oppose regulation, which you wouldn't know if you relied upon his handouts. But the fact is I support smart regulation. Zero regulation leads to hardship, economic turmoil, and poverty. Excessive regulation leads to the same thing. Supporting moderate levels of regulation actually benefits the economy. It is a fact. If he characterizes my position as hawkish, he simply does not understand mainstream economic thought. I do--and I will drive this economy forward.
Crime and punishment is essential for any presidential candidate. Arguable we need to pass shall-issue concealed carry laws. This allows citizens to defend themselves from each other and from the government. These laws reduce the crime rate significantly (http://www.guncite.com...). Allowing citizens to take matters into their own hands is how we begin to fix the problem.
My opponent supports punishing criminals--again, how does he do this while supporting anarchy? This is self-contradictory. He doesn't even know where he stands. Should this man be president when he supports laws but opposes governments? How will they be enforced? How will abortion clinics be treated as murderers? Will the abortion patient be liable for execution, life in jail, etc.? When he clarifies his position it just leads to more questions, not less.
I am simple. The death penalty is required to promote justice and deter crime. It is a clear statement, avoids question, and hits the problem directly. I oppose anarchism so this position is not contradictory. The fact is, my position makes sense. My opponent's doesn't.
The case of John MacRae proves my point. He is a terrible human being and deserves execution. As does Miller. Note my opponent doges the gay marriage question. It is a statist position he has and he knows it. He is preventing people who love each other from having a life-long union. He is supporting stigma which leads to depression, suicide, and death. He should be ashamed.
The Federal Reserve, unlike my opponent's anti government stance, must be preserved. They were successful in reducing unemployment by 1.5 percentage points in the last recession. Monetary stimulus which the Fed uses is costless, easy to reverse, and stimulates growth. I am willing to use all the tools in the toolbox to fix our country. My opponent wishes to strip away effective institutions in order to fufill political gain. This is unacceptable. I will lead to growth and prosperity with common sense measures. My opponent will stifle growth with fringe economic ideas. (http://www.federalreserve.gov...)
He has yet to justify anarchism.
Who would enforce the justice system? No one. If a criminal refuses to be punished he will not be punished, he will be outlawed. In the eyes of God and man the person is an animal. He can be captured and sold as a slave. This is perfectly constitutional as it would require due process of law. This sounds horrid, and it is, but people will not try and get away from a flogging or a restitution payment because the risk outweighs the benefits.
As for gay marriage, let them be gay, just not in this country. Do I have to allow every sin to become an anarchist? Can't I label myself as one because I accept the majority of their beliefs?
The great depression happened because of pre 1949 government intervention. People were hurt. Do you want that again? The only solution is to stabilise the currency, and to stop regulation of the economy. You all are americans. My opponent wants to play with your hopes and dreams. He wants to copy the mistakes that created Standard Oil, and other robber baron capitalists. The true entrepreneur cannot get a foot hold because the wall street execs are manipulating the government. Bribes, 'presents' it doesn't matter. It is corruption and the end is when I will get elected. Corruption will cease and I will not be a 'king' with courtiers all around. It is time to take action. Let us not repeat what got us into this crisis. That is what my opponent wants. I am a man of the people. I am a middle class politician. I do not own millions of dollars. I do not drive a new car even. I promise that I will be as frugal with your money as with my money. Unlike other people I dive into my pocket to help Americans. I will not give governmental money to any disaster survivors. I will give my own money. Your money is not for me to stuff my pockets with. I even think my salary, if I was elected, would be to big. I will donate 50% of my salary to charity if I am elected.
Many American's are hurt by the Federal Reserve. It causes the boom bust cycle that caused the housing bubble. It also caused countless recessions. I say let us go back to what the founding fathers wanted.
Vote for me for a better future, for an Austrian future, for a freer future.
Walle Ras 2016
My opponent tries to change the definition of what anarchism is, but he failed to do so last round. He then agrees to the previous definition of anarchy—he already dropped the argument—so, in debate, it is impossible for him to backtrack. My opponent even admits that anarchy is unattainable, meaning his whole position is illogical and a knee-jerk reaction to the turmoil we see today. He then claims we need a government with no power. This doesn’t even make sense. A government with no power is a government which cannot enforce contracts. Economist Milton Friedman, who opposes the government, states “[g]overnment has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property.” If all of the power is stripped from the government… then the government has no power to enforce any of these functions which are universally accepted as good. Without defense another country without crazy laws will take us over. Without power contracts cannot be enforced—which is key in capitalism—and without power property rights will not be protected. This also leads to a paradox: Why run for president? If we take away all the power, you have ZERO power to do ANYTHING you have been wanting to do. This means you will do NOTHING for this country. This country does not need a president who will prevent our government from doing anything.
He also contradicts his position. With the government unable to enforce contracts, they are unable to defend the bill of rights which he defends. Thus, he will lead to a society which ignores all of the tenants we hold dear—gun rights, freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, freedom to not house troops, etc. His whole stance on anarchy doesn’t even make sense and paralyzes his entire position. It is pretty crazy that a presidential candidate has gotten enough traction to be on national television yet contradicts himself the more he speaks and weakens his own position—and the position of the country itself.
My opponent doesn’t even make sense for justice. He will be outlawed? By who? He is assuming citizens will somehow outlaw him themselves and then enslave him—something which is totally immoral—but again, with the government unable to enforce contracts, why outlaw him? What if the outlaw has outlaw friends? It is very possible that the tables could turn and chaos will ensue. His whole position on how ‘justice’ will be enforced is just silly. And he then supports bringing back slavery and dares call it constitutional. It may be constitutional under due process, but it is unconstitutional under the 8th amendment. The Supreme court has ruled that a punishment must be evaluated “in light of the basic prohibition against inhuman treatment”, that the amendment was created in order to protect the “basic concept . . . [of] the dignity of man” and it does this by ensuring that *all* punishments are “exercised within the limits of civilized standards.”  Enslaving someone, whether or not it is allowed under due process, is outside the limits of civilized standards, does not protect the dignity of man, and fails the test to pass the accepted jurisprudence stating all punishments must be evaluated under the concept that inhumane treatment must be banned. It is inhumane on all levels, and should never be allowed. The fact he wants to be a barbarian and break the constitution—something he claims to support—is sickening. It is impossible to say that this is constitutional—meaning it should not be supported—and, again, how would it be enforced with no government? His opinion as to how government should works refutes *every* argument he has put forward, and *any* reasoning person can see his concept of justice is just barbaric and unacceptable.
My opponent says gay people can be gay—but not in this country. That means he actually wishes to prohibit being gay at all, not just gay marriage! He again is supporting something inhumane and against the constitution. If he swears the presidential oath to not break the constitution, he would be a liar. Everything he is standing for is unconstitutional. Consensual sexual conduct—regardless of whether or not it is gay or not—is a liberty and “protected by substantive due process under the 14th Amendment.”  This was ruled in Lawrence v Texas 2003. Thus, the entire position my opponent has breaks his platform statement to uphold the bill of rights. This is total hypocrisy.
My opponent wishes to be anarchist despite the *obvious* contradictions in his stance. He can label himself anything he wants—but everything he is standing for is either against his core beliefs (or, so he says his beliefs are) or just won’t work under his governmental structure. It is pretty obvious that you are a poor anarchist and will be insidious to the rule of law of this country.
My opponent makes pretty crazy statements no good economist would actually support. There were many causes to the great depression, and the ones which stem from the Federal Reserve stem from the fact we were on the gold standard . We are no longer on the gold standard, which means the example is not applicable. Second, I offered *actual* empirical evidence that my plan would work. My opponent relies upon emotional appeals. Emotion does not matter when you are president. You need to be able to act fast devoid of emotional ties. What you do will affect millions, and trivial emotional arguments are not how you conduct sound policy. I also proved the 1949 levels of regulation spur growth and actually *prevent* recessions, meaning my position has actual backing behind it. He is just spewing anarchist propaganda and has not read any literature on the subject. My opponent keeps saying how he will donate his salary—ok, great. While you ruin the country they will need $200,000 from you. Instead I will be teaching self-reliance, have growth rates of 10%, reduce poverty to zero, and make everyone three times richer—I offered evidence that this would happen. So, take your pick: someone who ruins a country and gives some of his money to the people, or someone who makes everyone better off in the long term. If I were you, I would choose the guy who is going to help everyone. Again, this donation thing is just an emotional ploy. Giving your salary to the poor wont solve their problem. I do not think you are capable of making everyone better off. I offer actual solutions, you offer, well, nothing.
My opponent says we are hurt by the Fed—he fails to refute the *actual* evidence that it has helped people. He makes a statement with no backing whatsoever. Actual economists state that the most recent bust was because of optimistic forecasts—by everyone, not just the Fed—and ineffective regulation. We need basic levels of regulation—many of the 1949 regulations have been repealed (the rest ate excess and must be removed)—and that is what prevents busts, not abolishing the Fed . I have proven that the Fed reduced unemployment by 1.5%, making them good, and have proven they are not the sole cause of the boom and bust cycle—if anything, they reduce the impact of it. Monetary stimulus is free, effective, and easy to reverse. Removing the Federal Reserve puts the entire economy at risk.
My views on the government, monetary policy, and justice all make sense. My opponent is self-contradictory and supports policies which would hurt anyone—and donating his salary is not enough to make up for the harm he will inflict.
On gay marriage. I will limit my fight to a national scale. Trying to stop the federal government from going one way or the other. Same with abortion. The federal government is pocking its nosing into your business. I plan to stop that. No more of the government passing stupid laws, not more, interfering. I plan to withdraw the government out of you life. It will provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. And nothing else. Let the states worry about the other stuff.
I ask you a question, America. Who knows best, the government that knows nothing about your situation or the states, which knows more about what is good for the state. The federal government has overstepped its bounds and it need to be leashed again. I will leash it and prosperity will follow. I challenge you America to go home and to help other people so that the state doesn't have to. I want the people to take action, not the government. Look not at my personal beliefs but what I will do. I will lead America back to the constitution. I will repeal every single bill that takes your money and throws it down into a black hole. It is your money not mine.
Vote for me, for a better tomorrow, and for the constitutional future, for a future of less government and more jobs.
I have already listed my solutions. My opponent attacks one: the regulatory levels. But he *drops*:
This means he concedes all of those as true. The fact that the Fed has such a large impact, and he dropped it, is enough to give me the win.
He argued 1949 levels of regulation are unconstitutional. If this were true wouldn’t the supreme court have acted? This is totally based upon my opponent’s opinion. But due to the fact he thinks you can enslave someone and it would somehow not be ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment tells us that he really doesn’t have any sound expertise or opinion as to what the constitution means. He has not (1) listed any unconstitutional regulation and (2) listed any supreme court case on the issue. This is enough to throw away his criticism.
My opponent dodges the social issues question. He says he doesn’t want the government to switch opinions on abortion and gay marriage, but then in the same breath states that the government shouldn’t intrude in someone’s business… Yet prohibiting same sex marriage directly violates the privacy of the bedroom. As stated, his social policies are highly statist. To argue that the government is big and must be shrunk--and the way to do this is by expanding governmental power to discriminate against homosexuals--is totally contradictory and ruins his entire case. He has not offered *one* good reason to prohibit same sex marriage and has not offered *one* good response to the fact that prohibiting SSM is very statist and contradicts his entire position of small-government.
Yes, who knows best. Someone who understands the facts of economics, someone who uses actual data, someone who isn’t a fringe anarchist, someone who isn’t supporting social statism, someone who is supporting reasonable regulation, someone who isn’t going to implement barbaric punishments into the justice system, someone who responds to claims and does not ignore them, someone who will actually rein in the Federal Government. My opponent picks and chooses what to shrink. Shrink government regulation but expand social regulation. I would cut back both. My position is non-contradictory and actually makes sense. My plans will work--his have no empirical support. This is a clear choice.
(Plus I am Latino so I will win all the important states)
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|