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

There are no compelling objections to anarchism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/11/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,046 times Debate No: 26171
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)





The resolution for this debate will deal with anarchism and whether it would have a legitimate possibility of effectively and qualitatively providing various social services which are generally recognized as necessary for the existence of civil society.

In this debate, Pro is tasked with establishing a general framework for the effective production of these services (as well as their plausibility, just saying it's possible that everyone would get along is insufficient) while also refuting Con's arguments. Con's burden is to both attempt to refute Pro's framework, as well as to forward and defend one or more compelling objections to anarchism.


Anarchism in the scope of this debate does not concur with the vulgar use of the term (referring to chaos or lawlessness), but instead with the political philosophy advocating a form of social organization without a territorial monopoly on the provision of law, defense, arbitration, or any other services. More specifically, I will be defending free market anarchism[1] when more non-institutional specifics are brought up.

The term State refers to an institution which holds an aggressive monopoly on the provision of law, defense, arbitration, and in most instance other services (such as roads or mail delivery). Aside from monocentric control of the provision of these services, a State also has the power to tax the inhabitants under its control.

A compelling objection in this instance will refer to an objection levelled against anarchism which shows it to be incapable of providing necessary social services (such as law and order) effectively or qualitatively. I don't think Con will be guilty of this but just in case, an argument along the lines of saying that some service X would be 5% more efficient then anarchist service X wouldn't be considered compelling. The term compelling implies a strong difference between the respective provision of the given services which sways strongly in the State's favor.


1. Drops will count as concessions.
2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.
3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.
4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation begins in R2.
5. BoP is shared between Pro and Con.




As one who is apathetic to politics altogether I have often wondered if I myself am an anarchist. That was until I read up on anarchy, which short of corruption communism and fascism, is the fourth most disgusting political system human societies have to offer.

In round two explain why anarchism is disgusting, and very self-destructive as a political regime (even though it is technically the complete abolishment of any feasible regime).

I accept.

Debate Round No. 1


Note: My introductory case is the same as for this debate which I'm currently doing: wrote it myself so it isn't plagurism. Furthermore I'm almost positive that this is a trolled debate and I don't wish to put in the effort in righting out another exhaustive case for nothing. Readers should also note that this is merely an introduction, I still plan on writing out unique responses to whatever objections Con brings against my arguments.

Contention I. Polycentric vs. Monocentric Organization.

One of the main differences between statist and anarchist social and legal theory is that states operate under a monocentric legal and political system. This simply means that within a given geographical region, a single institution (called a government or state) manages and controls how the legal, police, and court systems are organized and operated. This doesn't mean citizen input isn't used (as in the case of democracy), just that the institution charged with carrying out of these duties and with providing these services is singular. This may be contrasted with polycentric law, the legal system posited by anarchism. Under polycentric law, multiple institutions exist without monopolistic jurisdictions, similar to how other commodities are provided.

There are a few reasons why this form of social organization would be viable, and possibly even superior, to monocentric law. Gustave de Molinari wrote: "That in all cases, for all commodities that serve to provide for the tangible or intangible needs of the consumer, it is in the consumer"s best interest that labor and trade remain free, because the freedom of labor and of trade have as their necessary and permanent result the maximum reduction of price." and that "That the production of security should, in the interests of the consumers of this intangible commodity, remain subject to the law of free competition."[1]

One could counter that technically states are open to competition. This might be accepted in a sense, though not in the sense advocated by laissez-faire. Under monocentric law, the provision of services is subject to a geographical monopoly, even if not a universal one. For instance, in a city A, if there was only one gas station B, this would surely be considered a monopoly. This is even given the fact that gas station B technically has competition with some gas station C over in another town or gas station D,E,F,G.... in further cities or states. The competition is in name only or at least inferior to a situation in which gas stations (or states) were more geographically competitive.

Contention II. Exceptions and Public Goods.

One possible counter to the above argument (that competition generally fairs well) is that certain services and commodities are special, that they are public goods. This means that it is not possible (or highly impractical) to exclude others from using a service. For instance, a common service thought to be a common good is national defense. That is, when seeking the funds to produce such a service, my contribution to the funds will not by itself guarantee that it is produced. Many other people also have to chip in. But since national defense is just that, national, I will benefit from its production even if I don't chip in at all. Therefore I have more to gain if I don't chip in but everyone else does. The problem is everyone else thinks this as well which turns individual rationality into collective irrationality. Everyone does what's in their best interest and the good is never produced. Therefore, it is argued, there must be some centralized coercive organization to force every citizen to pay (via taxation).


The first problem with this argument is that it fails to take into account the possibility of non-necessitated incentives. The game-theory analysis shows that it's rational for one not to pay, but irrational if everyone chooses the same. However, switching these incentives leads to the opposite conclusion. This is the method employed by the concept of dominant assurance contracts[2]. What happens is, one agrees to pay for a service (through contract) if and only if enough others also agree to pay for it whereby it would be sufficient to produce. One only gets access to the service by paying for it, therefore it becomes individually as well as collectively rational to chip in.


The second problem with this argument is that (a) it proves too much and (b) it is inconsistently applied. If we accept the logic behind this conclusion, monocentric government cannot itself be the solution since this logic has been shown (through public choice theory) to apply just as well to liberal government (both republican and democratic). The only difference is the public good. We move from national defense to "good policies" or policies which serve the overall interest of the community.

The point comes about by an analysis of the various roles in a politic, citizens, politicians, and special interests. Via the large number of voters (and subsequently the relative uselessness of an individual vote) combined with the fact that not everyone can be expected to really understand such out of reach issues as the geopolitical situation in the Middle East, voters are taken to be what is called rationally ignorant[3]. Even if you take all the time to learn everything there is about the Middle East in order to make a rational decision, this is the exception not the rule. And since this wouldn't bring positive utility benefits, it becomes individually irrational to do so, even if it is collectively rational.

Analysis towards politicians and special interests yields equally distressing results. Since in a democracy, politicians are in most cases elected to office (barring how so whether direct or through republican means), a large amount of time must be devoted to re-election. Even if you have all the right ideas, you can't do much if you're not ever elected. In doing so the interests of the politician align with those of the special interest. In devoting money to politician A's campaign, special interest B curries favor while politician A ups their chance of election. We can even see this in the most recent Presidential election.


No system is perfect, but the criticisms levied against anarchism are generally either self defeating or not rigorously applied. Anarchism is supposed by the critic to be a system without rules or order, whereas the state is supposed to a system of rules and order, applied by politicians and kept in check by the citizenry. But this is rarely the case in practice. Furthermore, the legal system proposed by anarchismitself the outgrowth of the logical implications of the classical liberal move toward laissez-faire and free enterprise. Ifiscompetition is a favorable condition, it must apply to any other service, even law. The public goods counter applies just as well to the state, the exact thing prescribed in anarchisms stead.


[1] "The Production of Security" by Gustave de Molinari. Available online:
[2] "The Private Provision of Public Goods via Dominant Assurance Contracts" by Alexander Tabarrok. Available online:
[3] "The Myth of The Rational Voter" by Bryan Caplan. Available online:


I disagree with your debate but wish to first introduce mine, I shall rebut next round.

C1: Sexual slavery

Who is there to stop it? police? If there are police, who stops them going corrupt? Of course not. Sexual slavery of children as young as two can occur, just that dirty old rascal you are to support it!

C2: Murder

Your beloved girlfriend, sexy and caring and amazing as she is, is walking down the street to get a nice pack of condoms for you tonight ;)... Oh wait... Nope... Random madman knocks here DEAD who to stop? No one, this is anarchism.

C3: Only the strongest will survive

The human system of politics was invented for the purposes of people of a range of talents and abilities, not simply physical prowess, to succeed and contribute to society but here where there is rape, theft, murder, and simply public mockery of random people for the hell of it who will survive the best? The strong ones only, no matter if they are dumb and kill all smart humans right out of existence, and thus society remains genetically too stupid to ever reform again.

C4: Who is to enforce any law

You go to a bank and rob it, WHO WILL STOP YOU? no one. they will all join in for Christ's sake! The economy will be doomed!

C5: Torture for fun

Your lovely daughter goes out to play, and your son with her, but then a man with a gun comes out for no reason, with a gang to guard his back, and says oh hush little baby don't you cry, then kills your son. Then you daughter begins to scream, this is as he cuts open her tiny mouth and leaves her to die as the joker does. Who to stop it? Batman? Really? No governmental organisation = chaos. Even if there is an anarchic one how to enforce laws if you got no laws?

Anarchism is f*cking disgusting you fool. Organised politics is essential, a government MUST BE IN PLACE THAT DOESN'T SWAY TO ITS PEOPLES EVERY DESIRE! It is what separates us form the common animal.
Debate Round No. 2


First, I'd like to point out that Con is trolling this debate, this being the second one of my own which he has done so to. Therefore I won't be putting as much effort into this debate as I am in my other on the same subject. Readers looking for an actual debate on the subject see here:

On Con's actual points though, I won't bother getting into each point since they all make basically the same point. He argues that under anarchism, some outcome X would happen and that outcome is bad. There are two problems with his point though. The first being that Con ignores to answer why state would fare better in these situations. The second being that Con fails to actually respond to my arguments for why an anarchist social system would be able to handle these difficulties.

As stated before, Con makes the mistake of failing to show why states are immune to these problems Con brings up. Obviously survival of the fittest, torture for fun, slavery, etc. are all unfavorable situations. However, haven't we seen these happen under the governance of states? Con can't simply attribute the worst atrocities imaginable to anarchism but ignore the reality of states.

Secondly, Con has completely ignored my constructive case in favor of polycentric law. Anarchism does not mean lawlessness or law of the jungle. It simply refers to a socio-political system without monocentric control over the provision of defense and legal services. If Con sees problems with polycentric legal systems as such, he is free to bring those issues to light. But mere conjecture doesn't serve well in debate.


RationalMadman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Extend refutations and Vote Pro. Note that Con has essentially conceded the debate as per the rule that drops are concessions and owing to the fact that new arguments aren't allowed in the final round.


My internet brpke yesterday this is why
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by WW 4 years ago
I see 5 arguments from Con and they're all the same, lol.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
Crap. Now I have to try this over again.
Posted by CiRrK 4 years ago
Im tempted to take this. Though 4T already expressed potential interest. Im thinking when team debates come up: Me/4T vs. SPinko/Insert other debater on this topic.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
Ft, you can accept if you want.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
I understand that this debate will cover free market anarchism. However, I am not certain how deeply participants will be permitted to delve into the theory of anarchism itself (little A.)

To be faithful, anarchism - as a political force - must direct its energies at culture rather than government. This is the entire concept of the doctrine, almost kept as a secret by the anarchists. Anarchism creates political artists, and not political operatives. The anarchist will affect the governance of any given society through the society that grants legislative authority to that government - not from any direct attempt to supplant that government.

I think that I agree with Pro's premise. So I really should not pick this debate up. However, Pro may be in a better position to interpret this...
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
I am torn.

It is literally painful for me to pass this debate up. Physically painful.
Posted by FourTrouble 4 years ago
Jeez, this debate looks too good to pass up. I'll take it, if you want to debate again.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
He admitted he doesn't understand anarchist legal or economic theory so why would I do that? His only argument is a modified historical social contract.
Posted by thett3 4 years ago
challenge ike to this debate
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 3 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Wow. Pathetic, Con, pathetic.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 3 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Not only did con forfeit as per the rules, he also didn't respond to pro's case in the slightest and was attacking it on the terms that anarchism was lawlessness and chaos, something that pro had outlined WASN'T what anarchism was in round one.
Vote Placed by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con trolled and then forfeited. Obviously, Pro gets the conduct and arguments points. Pro also gets the sources point for substantiating his case with credibile citations.