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

The US Federal Goveronment should abolish 99%of its functions

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: 8/11/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 788 times Debate No: 94620
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




Google docs are not a violation of conduct,
I will argue that the US Federal Goveronment should abolish all its powers exept these:
1. Provide a strong national defense.
2. Stamp gold and silver bullion or coin certifying weight and purity for use as money.
3. Fund public education.
The following it should leave to the states and the rest it should give to the people.
1. The minimum wage
2. Healthcare


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - The Tenth Ammendment

Here are the powers given to the Federal Goveronment in the constitution under Article 1 Section 8:

1. To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

2. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

3. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

4. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

5. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

6. To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

7. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

8. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

9. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

10. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

11. To provide and maintain a Navy;

12. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

13. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

14. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

15. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

By "powers," I meant goveronment programs, so the constitution says that the goveronment should have the powers listed above and no others. Of these the only goveronment program approved of is defense spending, so we should pass a constitutional ammendment permitting the goveronment to fund education thenleave it at that, and give the rest to the states.

Then there is the argument of the balanced budget, if we eliminated all goveronment programs but increase defense spending to 750 billion, and reduce education to 250 billion, but reform our education system to be like Finlands, spending 5,000$ per child annualy, and spend 50 billion in goveronment expenses annualy, then our total budget will be 1.05 trillion. if we allot 225 billion toward the intrest on the debt, we will spend 1.275 billion annualy.

We then reduce the income tax to 25.2%, giving us revenue of 4.025 trillion, and a surplus of 2.75 trillion, allowing us to pay the debt off in 8 years. After which we reduce the income tax to only 6.6%, giving us a balanced budget of 1.05 trillion exactly equal to our revenue. This being based on a GDP of 16 trillion.



My opponent starts by claiming that the constitution states the government should only have 15 responsibilities (it’s actually more than 15, but my opponent cut some out).

However his argument assumes the government is justified by the constitution. Something for which he has provided no evidence. Second, he assumes the constitution shouldn’t be changed when needed. Which we know has happened many times throughout history [1] and should be the case because as Jefferson said “The dead should not rule the living.” [2]

Furthermore, his argument contradicts his original proposition. Clause 6 and 7 for instance don’t fall under Pro’s 3 responsibilities of government. The full text of section 8 also states the government should “....have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;” [3]. Again, where does this fit in the original propositions?

His next argument has to do with the national debt. However this argument assumes that the national debt is something that needs to be paid off right away. The national debt and personal debt are two very different things. Eliminating the debt can have serious adverse effects in international economics [4].

Professor Buchanan states “...there is no convincing theory or evidence demonstrating that a

government can enhance its citizens’ economic prosperity by refusing to borrow money. By contrast, because the federal government can undertake high-return investments (such as spending on education and infrastructure), the Golden Rule of government budgeting suggests that the federal government should run annual deficits to finance such long-term investments, while collecting sufficient tax revenues to pay for the rest of the government’s operatIons each year. “ [5]


I argue that we shouldn't abolish 99% of the government's functions, but we should abolish 100% of its functions. This is much better than abolishing all but 1% of its functions.

Pro never actually argues what justifies the remaining 1% at all. He simply assumes the legitimacy of the state. Since the state is making the claim of authority, then it is Pro’s job to justify its existence.

We ought to strive towards maximum freedom for all, as an unfree society inherently seems wrong and it seems arbitrary to claim that some freedoms are just and some aren’t. Since the government is structured in a hierarchical fashion, this entails it possesses authoritarian characteristics. However, if the government was abolished and a horizontal structure was instilled, this would eliminate any possibility of coercion by a state.

I also don’t see what’s to stop the government from establishing more power. Assuming the government had and only had the responsibilities listed at the founding of the US, then it’s evident that it obtained more power. So why wouldn’t it happen again?

Lastly, we ought to abolish the state as it lacks moral authority. Assuming the state had moral authority, then it follows that its laws have moral import. That is to say, when the state makes a law, it is moral to follow it because it is law. However, this is clearly false. If a law claims we ought to murder children, it is morally abhorrent to follow it. It also doesn’t seem immoral to break certain laws. For example, nobody thinks I’m breaking some moral code if I have a coin in my ear in Hawaii, even though it’s against the law [6]. We follow something because our sense of morality tells us this, not because of a dictation from a government official.

This means the law has no moral import and neither does the government have moral authority. If we have a government in place, then it is in violation of morality.

Pro’s arguments fail to show why we should abolish all but 1% of the government. Even assuming the state is justified, his arguments fail. However, what is best is if 100% of government functions be abolished.








Debate Round No. 2


First of all my opponent claims that we should abolish the entire government, so from here I only have to argue that education and military spending are necessary. Either way I only claimed that we should abolish all government programs except these, not all government powers aside from these, though this would be a good idea.

The necessity of limited government:

My opponent claims that we can live without a government because humans automatically recognize immoral behaviors as immoral; therefor we can govern ourselves as individuals. This is not so, James Madison pointed out;

“If men were angels no government would be necessary.”

But men are not angels, this is fairly obvious, natural law didn’t prevent Muslims from bombing schools or committing atrocities. So someone needs to enforce this law, this is why the government was created.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” The Declaration of Independence.

So the government should preserve our liberties, i.e. life, liberty, and property. Without the government and the second amendment we would all just be victims of whoever came along to victimize us. Say China wants to enslave us, how are we to prevent this but to have a strong national defense and the right to defend our nation ourselves.

Then there is the issue of education, how will we ensure that all our children get an education without funding? Where will this funding come from but the government?

If we abolish all other functions, as well as slashing the income tax and government spending, and reducing government regulations, as well as providing military spending and an educated public, our economy will experience unprecedented growth and opportunity. Thus these functions should be retained.

The case for low taxes and no debt:

The government should pay off its debt with all deliberate time, and we don’t need to go into debt to fund education, we can do that with a 7% income tax and no further taxes. Either way there will be consequences to a 21 trillion dollar debt. But like my opponent said what is stopping the government from simply recreating this situation again? That is why I am proposing we pass a constitutional amendment banning government borrowing.

We then pass another constitutional amendment banning the government from creating any more powers. It’s that simple,

“The founding fathers had a very good idea of government, they said the government should be very limited, and they should be protecting our liberties, and providing a strong defense and a sound currency, we don’t do any of that.” – Ron Paul



My opponent completely drops his arguments in regards to the constitution. Until he responds he has conceded that point.

It also appears that he has dropped my points about the debt. All he does is assert “The government should pay off its debt with all deliberate time” sans justification. Then goes onto claim we could do it. It seems my opponent has dropped his entire positive case.

Abolishment of Government

Pro starts off by stating we need the government because men cannot govern themselves and we need to be able to defend ourselves from foreign invaders. Along with asking how could education be funded.

All of these argument fail to justify the state’s existence.

His first attempted justification starts with a straw man. My argument about moral authority has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to recognize natural law at all. The very first sentence of my argument states that it’s dealing with the lack of moral authority of government, nothing else. He then argues that humans aren’t fundamentally good and that we need government to enforce laws. First, this argument is self refuting, as it fails to understand the government itself is made up of humans. If humans are too immoral to govern themselves, then how would putting a select few in charge of others magically change their nature? The argument boils down to “Men cannot govern, which is why we need men to govern”. It is humans that make the laws and it is humans that carry out the enforcement, any statement about human nature will necessarily apply to the lawmakers and enforcers. If Pro is correct that humans are no angels, is it really wise to provide a select few of devils with power over others?

Second, this argument is asserted with no justification to back it up. He merely appeals to James Madison’s authority and cites some Islamic bombing. I’m not exactly sure what bombings prove, as it’s clear governments didn’t stop said atrocities either.

Third, such argument is contradicted by sociology. Human nature is crafted by the society and culture in which one lives. Take for example the Semai culture. The Semai culture exists purely on cooperation and possesses no government structure, yet “little violence occurs within Semai society. Violence, in fact, seems to terrify the Semai. A Semai does not meet force with force, but with passivity or flight. Yet, he has no institutionalized way of preventing violence — no social controls, no police or courts. Somehow a Semai learns automatically always to keep tight rein over his aggressive impulses.” [1] The only threat to their culture of nonviolence was due to British colonialism [2]. This shows human nature isn’t inherently violent, but caused due to the society in which we exist. An anarchist society based on cooperation and solidarity will foster those values in human nature.

This is also evident by the fact humans exist. Humans are social beings. It wouldn’t be beneficial to always be in competition with others. What happens when said person needs help? How would this individual pass on their genes if said genes are predisposed to rejecting cooperation?

Fourth, the argument assumes there is something magical about centralization in regards to enforcement of laws. In an anarchist society, we would have a horizontal structure. No man over another, one where decisions are decided by everyone in a decentralized fashion. Instead of laws, we would have rules according to the local commune in which one lives. Why would someone disobey a rule that they themselves agreed to enact? If one is speaking about murder and the like, then it can still be handled in a decentralized way. However, we must keep in mind that many of the social attributes that cause crime will be eliminated in an anarchist society, as hierarchy would be abolished in favor of maximizing freedom and equality.

The next argument Pro brings up is the question of how we would defend ourselves. Again he is assuming there is something special about centralization. Anarchism is against hierarchical coercive authority, not organization. During an event such as a foreign invasion the people would organize themselves into a bottom-up defensive force. As Malatesta writes [3]

“But, by all means, let us admit that the governments of the still unemancipated countries were to want to, and could, attempt to reduce free people to a state of slavery once again. Would this people require a government to defend itself? To wage war men are needed who have all the necessary geographical and mechanical knowledge, and above all large masses of the population willing to go and fight. A government can neither increase the abilities of the former nor the will and courage of the latter. And the experience of history teaches us that a people who really want to defend their own country are invincible: and in Italy everyone knows that before the corps of volunteers (anarchist formations) thrones topple, and regular armies composed of conscripts or mercenaries disappear.”

There have been cases where militias model themselves very close to this structure, such as the “Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine”. “The insurgent army did not stand above the population and give them orders. Peasants organized themselves from the bottom up, without a state. The RIAU had no monopoly on legitimate violence. All these militias did was defend their communities from people attempting to impose a state on them. The RIAU did not enforce the rule of anyone over the rest of the population. Its’ purpose was to prevent any group of people from imposing their rule over anyone else”. This army was very successful in repelling enemies such as the white army, but fell only due to betrayal by the Bolsheviks and not enough resources [ibid]. But such things wouldn’t be a problem for the US, with its amount of resources and industrialization.

Indeed, a centralized army has many downsides. For one, it is at the beck and call of an authority. If such authority believes it is profitable to take land and resources, then it can use its army in an oppressive way. As is what happens too often today.

His next question is about the funding of education. If we absolutely must keep capitalism, education can be funded through charities. It would be very very beneficial for education to be funded, as the children would be the future working class. If we are to open our minds to post-capitalist structures, then such a thing wouldn’t be a problem. Wage labor would either be radically changed or abolished, making the question of funding is trivial.

He states keeping government functions will cause the economy to grow, however this is asserted with no evidence. It also doesn’t take into account that economic growth doesn’t necessarily correspond to the well being of its citizens.

Pro then says the government could easily make a constitutional amendment that would limit its power. However, the constitution according to Pro already limited the government’s power and look what good that did. The amendments would be put in place by the government, what’s to stop them adding another that grants it a little more power?

I find all of Pro’s reasons for accepting a small government faulty. Abolishing only 99% of its functions is ineffective and doesn’t maximize freedom as much as going all the way. Total abolishment has been upheld as the best way to go.


[1] Robert K. Dentan, The Semai: A Nonviolent People of Malaya. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1979, p. 59.


[3] Malatesta, E., & Richards, V. (n.d.). Anarchy. Pp 40-41


Debate Round No. 3


No government vs. Republican government:

My opponent claims that a government wouldn’t govern us any differently because it is composed of more humans; she fails to address how under a constitutional republic humans would keep other humans in check, and as long as these forces are separate they balance out. Her assumption would be true if we were being governed by 1 person, but this is not the case.

The case for limited government:

Theoretically speaking the government could just grant themselves these powers back, but the job of a democracy is never over, we were never intended to stay in one place, so after we eliminate these unconstitutional powers we will learn from our mistakes and fix them. We can start by making anyone who wants to grant new powers to the government ineligible for any Federal Office.

We can also specify that the government only has these 2 functions and cannot be granted any more powers. Asking why we should work with limitations on the government because the government broke hem last time is like asking why we should study math because last time you tested you failed. A real solution is to learn what went wrong and fix it.

The case for centralization:

There is something about centralization which provides an advantage, when the Ottomans invaded Constantinople they won, despite the fact that they were besieging a city with more men than them, which you never do according to the Art of War, because the Ottoman Soldiers were far more disciplined and organized than the Romans.

My opponent also makes a case about the Semai, who were destroyed by the British because they couldn’t defend themselves. This reminds me of the George Harrison Assassination, you see Harrison was assaulted by an assassin, so he started chanting “Harri Krishna” hippie-love-peace songs, which didn’t do anything but almost get him killed. He got saved because his wife picked up an iron rod and started beating the assassin with it.

So obviously total pacifism doesn’t work, Ecclesiastes 3:18:

To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven, A time to be born, And a time to die; A time to plant, And a time to pluck what is planted; A time to kill, And a time to heal; A time to break down, And a time to build up; A time to weep, And a time to laugh; A time to mourn, And a time to dance; A time to cast away stones. And a time to gather stones; A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing. A time to gain, And a time to lose, A time to keep, And a time to throw away; A time to tear, And a time to sew; A time to keep silence, And a time to speak; A time to love, And a time to hate; A time of war, And a time of peace.”

The case for capitalism:

Capitalism has lifted millions out of poverty and has proven to increase people’s quality of living by massive margins, so unless my opponent thinks that people should be poor, starving, and having a low quality of living, she should be a proponent of capitalism. Obcourse society naturally develops to become better, but thus far over 10,000 years of recorded history we are yet to see a better system arise, so I doubt one will develop.



My opponent has completely dropped his points on the national debt. He has also failed to address my points about the constitution being the authority for governmental power. He attacks my defense of anarchism, somewhat because he still has ignored a majority of my round.

Defense of Anarchism

Pro tries to claim under a republican government there would be checks in place to balance power. However, this is where we see the self-refuting nature of his argument. If humans can put checks in place, then it shows we can keep each other in check and if powers can balance themselves, then why can’t a horizontal structure where everybody is in charge balance itself? If human nature is so corrupt, then so would the said checks we put in place.

He has failed to answer my second point, asking for justification of Madison’s assertion. He has also ignored my point that human nature is flexible. Instead he strawmans my point on the Semai (which I’ll discuss later). Nor has he done anything to attack my model of “natural law” enforcement. His argument from human nature has been thoroughly refuted.

Defense of the Revolution

What does he have to say in regards to defense? He says there are some advantages to centralized armies. However, his reason for the Ottoman’s victory is because they were “more disciplined and organized”, but being organized and disciplined doesn’t entail centralization at all. Platformism argues for tight organization of anarchist groups [1] and the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine itself followed this philosophy. There is nothing contradictory about being organized and disciplined in an anarchist army

Anyway, I never once claimed a centralized army is necessarily weak so his argument is moot to begin with. I argued that a decentralized bottom-up army can work, so it’s not necessary to have a centralized force. And again, Pro ignores all my arguments for that point. He also ignores the problem with an army being in blind obedience to an authority.

He completely misunderstands my point about the Semai culture. I am not advocating for pacifism at all, nor does anything in my argument suggest this point. The Semai were used merely to point out human nature isn’t inherently violent and competitive. Although, his point is completely wrong anyway. The Semai weren’t destroyed by the British, they still exist today. The Semai were used by the British to fight in their wars [2] and their nonviolence is culturally threatened by British influence.

Government establishing power

Pro states that the job of democracy will keep government officials from obtaining power. The problem is, what if 51% of the people buy into propaganda of more governmental control? He provides an analogy that just because it failed once, doesn't mean we should stop trying and abolish it. Similar to a math test. The problem is the very nature of hierarchy entails the will to grab power, as it will further the interests of those in charge. Power corrupts even those who try to act honestly [3], reduces the ability to empathize [4], and tends to make people act selfishly [ibid]. Instilling a system of government will lead to those attempting to grab more power for themselves and putting them in charge of the military will give them the power to expand their interests. We can fuss around with attempted legal proceedings of which the government is in charge of to begin with. Or, we can instill a horizontal structure where no man is in charge of another.

I will also point out, this is only one of many of my arguments in favor of abolishment. Pro has never tried to rebut coherently the moral or the maximization of freedom argument.


For some reason, Pro felt the need to argue for capitalism. It seems to be in response to a statement I made in the funding argument. Although I am an anti-capitalist, I allowed for the possibility of capitalism to remain in existence, so I’m not sure why Pro felt the need to argue this point. Nonetheless, I will defend alternatives to capitalism.

His argument is that capitalism increased the standards of living and brought people out of poverty. This is a bad argument because so too did Hitler’s economic policies boost the economy and increase living standards [5]. That doesn’t mean we should accept fascism. The living standards of slaves also increased, but that isn’t an argument in favor of slavery.

Pro never explains how capitalism brings people out of poverty or how such a thing exists only for capitalism and not for some other system. Until he explains how, his statements cannot be taken to be arguments for capitalism.

Alternatives to capitalism have actually been proven to be successful, such is the case with the anarcho-socialist revolution in Spain. In certain areas of Spain after defeating Franco’s fascist government, anarchists collectivised workplaces and abided by socialistic systems (mutualism, collectivism and communism). Orwell. who was there during the time wrote:

“In theory it was perfect equality, and even in practice it was not far from it. There is a sense in which it would be true to say that one was experiencing a foretaste of Socialism, by which I mean that the prevailing mental atmosphere was that of Socialism. Many of the normal motives of civilized life—snobbishness, money-grubbing, fear of the boss, etc.—had simply ceased to exist. The ordinary class-division of society had disappeared to an extent that is almost unthinkable in the money-tainted air of England; there was no one there except the peasants and ourselves, and no one owned anyone else as his master….Yet so far as one could judge the people were contented and hopeful. There was no unemployment, and the price of living was still extremely low; you saw very few conspicuously destitute people, and no beggars except the gypsies. Above all, there was a belief in the revolution and the future, a feeling of having suddenly emerged into an era of equality and freedom. Human beings were trying to behave as human beings and not as cogs in the capitalist machine.” [6]

Historian Gaston Leval writes:

“the various agrarian and industrial collectives immediately instituted economic equality in accordance with the essential principle of communism, 'From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.' They co-ordinated their efforts through free association in whole regions, created new wealth, increased production (especially in agriculture), built more schools, and bettered public services.” [7]

Clearly this shows not only anarchism, but also post-capitalist structures working in practice.

In summary, Pro has ignored a majority of my arguments. He has only tried to deal with my argument that his plan is ineffective. He has not yet attacked my freedom argument nor has he properly rebutted my moral argument. He has dropped both his arguments in favor of attempting to defend the state’s existence. Even when he does this, his argument still fall flat, as he makes self-refuting claims while ignoring all of my other arguments.

I have demonstrated that the best thing for the USFG to do is cease to exist, abolish 100% of its functions.







[6] Orwell, George (1980) [1938]. "chapter 1". Homage to Catalonia.

[7] "Introductory Essay," The Anarchist Collectives, Sam Dolgoff pp.6-7

Debate Round No. 4


Again my opponent hasn’t attempted to answer my objections to his national debt and constitution arguments. Since it’s the end of the debate, they are dropped. His entire argument has focused on an attack of my counterplan. Since Pro is the one affirming the topic, the burden of proof is on him and since he has failed to answer my objections, he has failed to uphold his burden of proof.

Human Nature

Again, my opponent has dropped a majority of my rebuttal. He dropped his argument about power checks and still has failed to respond to my other objections. He now is only dealing with the decision making process of an anarchist society.

The analogy doesn’t make much practical sense. Why would anyone agree to live in a commune that permits stealing? It would make personal property meaningless and therefore very unsatisfying to live with. He also assumes decisions need to be resolved by warfare. This maybe the case under a state, but anarchism values decisions of the people. If no resolution can be reached, then the opposition is welcome to form a commune of their own. There is no overarching authority or laws in an anarchist society, just what is decided by its commune. If for some odd reason a group of people absolutely must have theft as commonplace, then who are we to exert authority over them if they aren’t hurting anybody who hasn’t consented? When their group fails and they understand the rationale for respect of personal property, then they will be welcomed back into the original commune or change their own.

Contrasted to a republican government, if a minority is unhappy with a law, they must suffer. Being under the dictation of no man and deciding things in a naturally directly democratic way or being under the dictation of the majority and politicians, the former sounds much better.


My opponent totally ignores anarchist concepts of organization such as platformism. The RIAU, organized yet anarchistic never did something as stupid like attacking in two different ways without planning.

And again for some reason he brings up the Semai tribe in regards to this point. The one and only reason I brought up the Semai tribe was to show human nature isn't inherently violent or oppressive. For some reason my opponent thinks this has something military defense.

Establishing Power

Pro’s solution to the government attempting to take power is to have people educated in the role of government, however people can still form their own opinions and interpretations about what it means to have a “more perfect union”. He has also ignored my point about the government officials having a vested interest in allowing themselves more power. There is also the chance that the government might complicate the voting and election process to make it easier to obtain power.

He says an anarchist society would have the same problem, since what’s there to stop someone from creating a government under anarchism? This would be incredibly difficult to do because the mass of society would still be anarchistic. There simply wouldn’t be the huge hierarchical bureaucratic structure in existence for someone to easily create a government. They would be dissociating from the whole of society itself making it practically impossible.

Furthermore, there is a huge difference here because wanting small government power and wanted large government power both assume the legitimacy of government. They both accept that core fundamental principle. But an anarchist society would reject that fundamental principle.

Next he says my liberty argument is hypocritical because the government in limiting its features wouldn’t infringe on liberties. This is a straw man of my argument. I am stating that the very fact the government is hierarchical entails it lacks the same amount of liberty that would be present in an anarchist society. A hierarchy necessarily has those on the top and those who are commanded. Pro is also advocating for governmental oversight in regards to laws in the first place.


Pro has failed to answer my objection that this portion of the debate fundamentally doesn’t matter because I still allowed for the possibility of capitalism.

Still my opponent shows a complete misunderstanding of my rebuttal, communism, capitalism, and revolutionary Spain.

My rebuttal wasn’t as Pro states “economic growth and increased quality of living is a bad thing because the Nazis had it”. I never once claimed this, my argument was that increased quality of living isn’t a good reason for accepting capitalism. Not the strawman that Pro attacked.

Hitler’s policy were fascist in nature and those fascist policies helped improve lives. He made people do the work which the government dictated or live in a forced labor camp [1]. Along with removing the employment of Jews and women [2]. I also don’t see how a slave-master relationship has anything remotely to do with capitalism, as Pro claims. Increased living standards don’t entail that we ought to accept the system in question.

Next he claims capitalism doesn’t deprive people of liberty. However, he ignores the fact that under capitalism the workers don’t have control over their workplaces. It is the bosses that have a dictatorship over them. He ignores that under capitalism you can live according to how much money you have. How much money you make is determined by how much a private business owner sees you are worth. You have a choice between selling yourself to a boss and doing what he tells you to do or starving. Is that really liberty? Or is a system where you have freedom in what happens in your workplace and where you are paid according to how much you have worked (if we choose to have a wage system) actual liberty?

Pro then makes a variety of totally unsourced claims about the Spanish civil war. He claims Spain wasn’t a good place to live despite my eyewitness testimony saying otherwise. He also asserts it was a dictatorship and that workers didn’t actually control the means of production…. What? This couldn’t be further from the truth. What about all of the evidence I provided just last round directly contradicting Pro’s claim here?

"Industry is in the hands of the workers and all the production centres conspicuously fly the red and black flagsas well as inscriptions announcing that they have really become collectives. The revolution seems to be universal.” [3]


"In Spain, during almost three years, despite a civil war that took a million lives, despite the opposition of the political parties . . . this idea of libertarian communism was put into effect. Very quickly more than 60% of the land was very quickly collectively cultivated by the peasants themselves, without landlords, without bosses, and without instituting capitalist competition to spur production. In almost all the industries, factories, mills, workshops, transportation services, public services, and utilities, the rank and file workers, their revolutionary committees, and their syndicates reorganised and administered production, distribution, and public services without capitalists, high-salaried managers, or the authority of the state." [ibid]

My opponent's claims that the worker’s never controlled the workplace are outright false, he provides no citation for what he claims and then misconstrues the position of communism. For one, Catalonia wasn’t totally communistic nor have I set up a dichotomy between capitalism and communism. I clearly stated there were other alternatives such as mutualism and collectivism. So even if my opponent's misconstructions of communism are correct, it still doesn’t matter. Second, there wasn’t any totalitarian communist state in place. A “communist state” is an oxymoron and the revolutionaries in Spain where anarchists and therefore wouldn’t have supported state control over the means of production.

Positions which advocate for communism come in many different shapes and sizes. It is wrong to point to the Marxist-Leninist concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat and claim that is communism and that everything and anything communistic falls under that banner. As Pro has done. He ignores the position many of the revolutionaries advocated for called for either direct communism sans any sort of dictatorship or transition to it using other anarcho-socialist philosophies such as collectivism or mutualism.

I’m not exactly sure why my opponent includes the time period up to the 1960s, as the Catalonia was lost to Franco and his fascist army in 1939 [4].

He asserts that in the 60s capitalism improved living standards. Again, this is an assertion without citation nor gives any comparison to revolutionary Spain. It doesn’t appear to have anything to do with capitalism because the socialist revolution was long gone by then. Even if we are to assume this was true, it doesn’t prove anything. Any system of economics is going to be rough on the living standards in the midst of a civil war.

Pro then goes to state nowhere in history has anarchism ever been practiced. This downright ignores every single piece of evidence of self-management in the spanish revolution which I provided. Along with ignoring all of the other times it’s happened before. Such as in the Shinmin Province [5] and the Free Territories of Ukraine [6].

Anyway, I could literally concede everything Pro said about capitalism and this still wouldn’t change a thing, because the origin of this rabbit hole included an exception for capitalism.

Pro has dropped both of his positive arguments (leaving him with an unfulfilled BOP) and formed his rebuttals based on strawmen.


[1 ]






Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by TheDebaytDood 2 years ago
Epica, I would vote for you, but because I don't have a phone I can't vote. Sorry. i will try to get my other comrades to vote on this debate.

Hail the Revolution!
Posted by TheDebaytDood 2 years ago
Down with greedy rich capitalist bourgeoisie pigs!

Hail the Revolution!
Posted by joshuroar 2 years ago
How is the federal government going to perform the functions that you listed without collecting taxes?
Posted by Epica 2 years ago
I accept, as long as you bring down the requirements....
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD given here: