Debate Rounds (5)
A stateless society cannot exist because if there is no higher power in a nation the nation collapses due to chaos.
In fact Anarchy (No government) is actually more oppressive. Without any government there are no rules. This means I can own a slave or kill someone for no reason. There is no penalty or any wrong in threatning someone to work for you without pay. A government creates laws which allows everyone to succeed in life however anarchy just favors the brutes of society.
So this negates Pro's claim that a Stateless society can thrive because many of the population will be under constant threat and not have freedom to do what they want.
Not only this but without a state there can be no given services. No mail, healthcare, education. Many companies as well will leave the US as well because there wouldn't be a profit. Many of their items will be stolen so what would be the point. Any laws made by a group of people would create a government and this would of course be against what my opponent is talking about.
The death toll would be tremendous because people will simply kill others to get what they want or they will die because companies will not use the country as a business partner so many people will not get their bare necessities and only the brutes of society will get ahead. In a anarchist society there is no need for intelligence. If you are not physically strong it doesn't matter that you have a 1000000000 IQ level, your going to get your belongings stolen and probably get killed in the process.
If your society does not value intelligence then it will fail. Now maybe my opponent will say "No! What if everyone didn't do these things." My opponent would be talking about a Utopia. In that case any idea in the world would work. People want things and they will do anything sometimes to get them.
A State is always needed to enact laws and provide services to help those without whereas no State will equal Survival of the Fittest (Not intelligence wise however)
I am against the existence of the government, and I label myself as an Anarcho Capitalist which is defined as a system in which services are not provided by any government or state, but rather voluntarily through the market. The ideas which I will be promoting here are largely borrowed from the likes of Ludwig von Mises, Murray rothbard, Stefan molyneux, Walter block, Lysander Spooner, Hans Herman Hoppe, and David Friedman.
Anarcho-Capitalism as I define it is a system where there is no state. Instead, it is a system of private property where all services are provided voluntary through the market.
My general approach to anarcho capitalism is based off of libertarianism first and foremost. Now there are two axioms to libertarianism, two sides of the same coin, and these are the non aggression principle and property rights. The non agression is basically what it sounds like: do not initiate force, do not aggress against others. The only time force is legitimate is in self defense or defense of another. It's not very controversial, because who supports murder, assault, rape or theft? The second axiom is property rights. So let's say Person X has a cap on his head, and I snatch it off. Have I committed aggression? It depends. If it was X's hat and I just grabbed it then I am at fault, but if he stole it from me yesterday and I simply was repossessing it then I am innocent.
Libertarians when It comes to property usually borrow from the Lockian/Rothbardian/Hoppeian homesteading theory. In other words, you mix your labour with the land, you cut down trees and build a cabin, grow crops, domesticate a cow etc, and this is how you come to acquire property if it is unowned. And because you own the property, you can transfer titles. Purchase, barter, gambling, and charity are examples of legitimate title transfer.
So by now you're probably asking just what the hell this has to to with this debate about anarcho capitalism and the state.
It relates to it because there are two main characteristics that the state possesses that distinguishes it from other institutions, and that is it's ability to tax and it's ability to forcefully eliminate competition in the provision of services. It's held to a different moral standard than other people. Let's give an example: in our everyday lives, when we want to accomplish things we get together voluntarily, we raise money, we persuade, we trade, we interact in many different formats, but never with guns. Never coercively. I didn't force anybody into accepting this debate challenge, and furthermore if I had, nobody would think it morally permissible. If this is still unclear, simply replace the word "government" with mafia.Let me expand upon this further.
Let's suppose that there is a man named Stuart. Stuart thinks that his town ought to have a public park. So he goes around collecting funds to pay for the endeavor. Being the greedy capitalist pig that I am, I refuse to pay when he comes to My door. In response, he takes out a baseball bat, breaks my knee and steals my wallet. What would the general reaction be? Something along the lines of "this man should be criminally prosecuted, he committed assault with a weapon and armed robbery." , and justly so. But let's tweak this scenario a little bit. Suppose that people in my neighborhood vote for Stuart to take my money forcibly, and he does. Most people would still find this morally repugnante. Theft is theft.
But let's go a little farther. Suppose now that Stuart is a member of the republican party, and he is voted into public office. What then happens when the time comes to pay my taxes, and I refuse, and men with guns clad in costumes and badges break into my house an forcibly remove me, and lock me in a cage? Stuart is now a public servant, a selfless representative of the will of the people. People chant his name, people revere him wheras a mere change in terminology and consistency would deem him a common thief, a looter for doing virtually the same thing as in the previous examples. This is explained better when German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer talks about what he refers to as the economic means vs the political means.
Another characteristic which I mentioned which the state possesses is it's ability to outlaw competition with it. For example, if you and I want to start a software company. We do not have it intrinsically in our possession to ban competiting entrepreneurs. We may be the favored business because our customers prefer our product to that of our competitors thus limiting competition in that sense, but we cannot legally ban a group like Microsoft from entering the market to compete with us. By contrast, the state claims coercive monopoly on the provision of several services such as the law, law enforcement, currency, national defense, education, roads and in My country healthcare, to name a few. In these cases, competition is immensely limited, or sometimes outright banned. In My home country of Canada, private medical clinics are virtually outlawed. This presents some problems. First, there is the issue of aggression. The government monopoly on protection is analogous to outlawing competition in t-shirts or wrist watches. Force is being initiated against innocent people.
Another problem, this time economically speaking that when you are funded coercively through taxation and fiat currency and competition is banned, what real incentive do you have to provide a good service? In a free market system where businessmen must compete for the money of their customers, If they fail to provide a good service for a reasonable price they will go out of business because of competition. Your pay depends on your ability to satisfy customers. By contrast, In a state run system you have no real incentive because regardless of what you do you have the guns and the power To collect taxes, and if someone tries to compete with you they will be criminally prosecuted. As an example, there is a significant problem with police violence in the united states, and surprisingly in Canada as well. If there was legitimate competition in the provision of protection services, police that were abusive would e fired or punished substantially, because in a free market your reputation is very important, and if said reputation comprised of yor employees beating up black people you would lose customers fast, as people would take there business to less violent agencies.
Now a common argument against what I am saying is something along the lines of "people are stupid, people are violent, selfish creatures, people are this and that". If anything, this is an argument against the existence of the state, because are state officials not people? You can't say that people are one thing, then create another category called the state which possesses none of those for-mentioned negative characteristics. Especially not a democratic state, where all these selfish people can choose the politicians.
Another objection that is often brought up is the issue of service provision. The state does X, X is important, therefore X won't get done. On its face, this makes no sense. Food and clothing are just as important as police, courts, military, healthcare and education, and yet there is no great movement to nationalize the fashion industry.
Imagine that you live in North Korea, a country where agriculture is entirely government run, and clothing is also government run. You would probably find it hard to imagine how a market in food and clothing would work, after all, without the government who would tell me what to where? It's no different in this case.
In the next round, I will attempt to convey how roads, police, and military could be provided voluntarily through the market, in the absence of a state.
Looking forward to round two. Good luck!
I will be starting with Paragraph 4 since 1-3 was just background.
The State/Government INCREASES competition. If the State did not meddle in the economy then a monopoly could rise and dominate the competition leading to LESS competition. If there was no government then all the gas companies would have a meeting and raise prices for gas. The government stops them by having things called price ceilings where a company cant rise the price over that specific number. Wall Street and Rockefellers Oil Industry and PERFECT examples of what happens when the government stops regulation. That's why companies need to be broken up to increase competition. But no government....no power to do that.
Taxes are used for government services. Not only that but they help fund the military and other government agencies. Without taxes sure youll keep some of your money but your not going to get any aid or anything. Not only that but there isn't a police force because of no funding! No laws so no need for police. Unless of course you make laws. But then you just created a government which, again, is against your thought process of anarchy.
Now on to the point of the of you "forcing" me to debate you. You cant come to my house and hold a gun to my head and force me to debate you because we have LAWS. In a anarchist society you could do this with no penalty. I think this hurts your case even more because using a gun to coerce people and even kill people with no penalty is the norm in an anarchist society.
Your comparison of armed robbery to paying taxes is ridiculous. If you want to live in the USA you need to pay your fair share of the pie to help keep the country going. Comparing that to somebody "breaking your legs" is an example of ignorance. Not only this but liberal ideas (my ideals) would have a progressive tax that would help ease the burden of somebody that would be struggling to make ends meet.
Again your analogy about the government outlawing competition is null and void because I explained that a government/State actually increases competition. Your explanation of how free services aren't good quality falls on deaf ears because in an anarchist society you get NO services at all.
You say that state officials could be violent....Yes that's why the people have the ability to get them out of office. You might say "well what if he doesn't want to get out of office and becomes a dictator". Then let me ask you this. Out of the almost the 280 years of the US HOW have we NOT have a power greedy official. Ill tell you why! They don't get elected. And if they do their power is short lived
Your argument about service provision is also absurd. Because the US hasn't nationalized the fashion industry your willing to give up the military, healthcare and the legal system. That makes sense! (not).
There is a reason that anarchy is portrayed as chaos and bad.
Thelibertarianmetalhead forfeited this round.
Thelibertarianmetalhead forfeited this round.
Thelibertarianmetalhead forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
|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||1|
Reasons for voting decision: ff
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.