The Instigator
Pro (for)
10 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
24 Points

There are no compelling objections to anarchism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 5 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,514 times Debate No: 28837
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (23)
Votes (5)





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 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. From this it follows that if States are just as incapable of providing said service, it wouldn't count as a unique argument against anarchism as such.


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. BoP is shared between Pro and Con.

Due to the unique nature of the resolution, I ask that Con list their objections to anarchism in the acceptance round (with or without an argument to support them). I ask this because I don't want to list a prima facie case for anarchism in R2 only to have Con come up with a totally unrelated counter. I would much rather cut right to the core of Con's objections to start.




Good morning ladies and gentlemen, thankyou for putting time into reading this debate!

Let's get this started shall we?

I saw this debate, and after having several questions to SocialPinko's theories on anarchism and volunteer parties, I can finally put those questions into a good debate to hopefully help better my understanding, and perhaps influence his through the complex divine nature of learning. What a wonderful concept yes? We debate to put forth our opinions and standby them to win; or do we? But I am not ignorant enough to say that I know everything, and that I will not learn anything from this debate. And depending on how this goes, my opinion may very well change which is partially why I want to debate this with SocialPinko's. Every part of knowledge I possess about anarchy, my brain detests, and I find a majority of complexities that would be involved in an anarchist system. I crave to understand an anarchists mind, and hope that if I do not get convinced by my very bright opponent, that I will at least gain a better respect and understanding for his philosophy.

Anyone who knows SocialPinko's knows he is of strong opinion that Anarchy can work, in a certain way. Though he has not said anything yet in this debate, I have had experiences with him in the forums sections with his philosophies, so I will start this debate by addressing what I already know SocialPinko's stands by as far as anarchism goes, and my general description of his particular philosophy.

Before we begin, I do agree to my opponents rules and framework.


Before I begin my Objections, let me make my opponents stand point a little bit more clear for the viewers, based solely off my best interpretations of his philosophies.
The pro in this debate, believes that A system of anarchy can work when a government "monopoly" is not interjected. My opponent believes that certain parties belonging to an anarchist lifestyle can simply offer up their services and cooperatively work together to build a neutral self sustaining community with no single unit of power.

A1: A hypocritical system

In order for the pro to sustain his position that there are no compelling objections to anarchism, he is virtually sustaining that it is a flawless mechanic of government operations, in that it satisfies more good than it's counter parts. Given that I am American, and most of you who will read this debate are American citizens as well, I will be referring a lot to the democratic government system we currently have in place, to show more adequate benefits, however, I do understand and recognize other governments that may work out better than the pre-supposed democracy.

In direct contention with my opponent's own statute on anarchism, Volunteer services is a form of implementing a monopoly. Now I like that my opponent uses this word,"monopoly". I think the general understanding of the word is known amongst the audience here, however let me source the definition I feel portrays itself most prominent from the word.

"the exclusive possession or control of something."


"a company or group that has such control."

Now the idea of a volunteer group of people emitting any type of control over others, is what directly makes it a monopoly in and of itself. If you want to think about America's Democratic system that's in place, we can compare apples to apples.

We have a police force, that directly co-ordinates itself against stopping and protecting human values. The common goal is to stop thievery, violence, and harmful intent to other human beings.

In coagulation with a Volunteer force, we have a group of people doing essentially the same thing according to their standards of protecting human values.

What's wrong with this you might ask yourself?

Here's the kicker.

IF there is no specific standard set in place, where a minority might feel different than a Majority of people on justice, the majority can instantly deteriorated, as they no longer have control. Remember that word control? That's the one we found in the dictionary definition of monopoly. So here we have a single group of vigilantes, doing what they think is right, though it may be harmful to proportionate amount of people, defying any stance on utility. The only way to prevent this is to add a standard, or a specific set of rules, a code of conduct, if you will, for a volunteer police force to live by.
The purpose of my opponents ideas on Anarchy, all suddenly seems to be lost, when a volunteer group is forced to unintentionally become a "monopoly" in order to serve the greatest amount of people, and in order to be fair. But can Pro honestly sustain an argument for Anarchy in a system where no rules are placed on law enforcement? If not, then pro must accept that a monopoly is needed in order to provide the correct amount of justice, and morality into his own system.

Is a monopoly in law enforcement such a bad thing however? While the Democratic system America has in place is far from perfect, does it not serve it purpose in superiority at protecting justice, than a band of volunteers who think they know what's best for others, until rebellion comes towards mass dis-agreement of ideals of force?

In a criminal justice system, it can be impossible to be 100% flawless, but realistically, the justice system does do it's part in protecting the people's rights, the victims, and the potential acquirees of harm.

C2: Other Aspects of a failing anarchy system

This argument doesn't just go for law enforcement, and can easily be expanded towards that of a market system. In Pros world, if Bob is in desperate need of something to survive on, Joe can offer up this item to bob as trade. Pro is volunteering his services to others, while gaining a profit himself, in some way or another, that he can self substantiate his own needs. Let's throw a realistic scenario into the equation. Carl sees Joe doing well in his services, and owning the same product as Joe, decides to enter his volunteer services into the market as well. Unfortunately, people know Joe, and have been loyal to him, thus continuing through his services. Carl now lacks the substantive product required to help his own survival. He sees one option, which is to beat the system that Joe already has in place.
Carl lowers his prices for the much needed item, such as to attract others to his dealings as well. Eventually people see the benefits of investing with Carl, and leave Joe's services for Carl's. Now Joe is hurt, and can no longer sustain himself and his family. The market system comes into place, and a monopoly on prices and products is introduced no different form than the market system we currently have in place as a "Monopoly". In order for people to best serve themselves, and protect theirselves, Monopolies inevitably become introduced into this category.

The point is, that no matter how my opponents form of anarchy is attempted, it inevitably is a failing attempt at government reform. No matter what the scenario, volunteer services introduced into an anarchy system, automatically becomes a failed system, as it is pre-destined to fail.

****WRAP UP****

Pro asked me in Round 1 to also expand on objections to Anarchy, which I will go on to outline in little detail, as to give my opponent an understanding of my standpoint.

Objections to Anarchy, outlined:

- Anarchy is ultimately chaotic, un-stable, and results in more harms than goods. A stable form of government and law is required in order to effectively sustain a stable society.

- A stable society is required in protecting the virtues and basic human god given rights. A democracy like the one we have in place with laws in place to protect that which all humans deserve (life, liberty, and happiness). Such cannot be guaranteed in an anarchy society, thus is not beneficial.

-Benefits to controlled societies, far outweigh that of the anarchist society, nulling the idea of anarchy.

Look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 1


===Pro Case===

Argumentation ethics.

Any argument for a State necessitates argument for the existence of an institution designated to employ aggression[1](either direct or through threat). This coercion comes in the form of taxation and, more conceptually, in the arrogation of compulsive monopoly on the provision of a given service. In doing this, States coerce otherwise non-aggressive market actors into not providing those services which States designate to be their sole jurisdiction (historically services such as defense, law, and roads). No State, properly defined, can exist without the employment of some level of aggression. This presents problems for any argumentative justification of States since in even making an argument , one presupposes the non-aggression principle[2]. The purpose of argumentative appeal lies in convincing one's opponent. But convincing me to let you steal my things is incoherent, given that if I were convinced it wouldn't be stealing, but simply a gift bestowed. The initiation of violence/force is thus among the things that cannot be rationally defended argumentatively (that and solipsism). Any argument for the State is thus self-contradicting since the conditions requisite for argumentation (free consent, non-aggression) in the first place are what are specifically being argued against. From the lack of a rational foundation for State action, one thus defaults to anarchism, literally lack of a State.

===Negation of Con Case===


The first clarification necessary to make stems from Con's first description of the anarchist position. He writes: "parties belonging to an anarchist lifestyle can.... work together to build a neutral self sustaining community with no single unit of power." This last part, "single unit of power" is troublesome. "Power" isn't a good word here since it can also include things like social (popularity) or economic (wealth) power which market anarchists don't take prima facie issue with. The term would better be replaced by "aggression", defined as "the initiation of physical force against other persons or their property, the threat of such, or fraud upon other persons or their property."[1]

Hypocritical system.

First, a re-statement of Con's position will help keep confusion to a minimum. Con's contention is that "Volunteer services" are a mechanism by which monopolization is facilitated. His argument is that defense service providers under anarchism would have a "monopoly" in forcing their own standards of interpersonal relations on others. This contention, as I intend to show, is filled with definitional confusion and what appears to be a lack of understanding on my opponent's part concerning the theoretical functioning of an anarchistic society.

(1) Con's first problem lies in, what I understand to be, his definition of a "volunteer force". Con's arguments imply that this simply consists of a group of "vigilantes" who take it upon themselves to protect members of their society. Con is essentially re-stating the function of a State (a group/institution arrogating for themselves a compulsive monopoly on the provision of law/defense), minus the small element of popular control allowed for by liberal democracy. This is a fallacious representation of anarchist politico-legal theory however. Anarchism (of the market variety defended here) proposes freely competing providers of defense against invasion of property, not an unrestricted group of aggressors who think themselves the only ones capable of providing said service (you're thinking of a State).

(2) Con's next problem has to do with his treatment of what we may call the "universal standards problem". Re-stated, the problem lies in how a polycentric (anarchist) legal system handles the supposedly inevitable existence of multiple, quite possibly incompatible, legal standards in existence within a single area. The standard State response is to aggressively establish a single, uniform standard across a given area. Anarchism, being diametrically opposed to such means, is thus supposed to be ineffective at effecting a solution to the problem.

This need not be the case though and there are several problems with Con's theoretical analysis in the first place. First, mutually incompatible legal/social systems are already in existence on a global scale. Just as different people might have different conceptions of justice under anarchism, so different countries do so under the current State paradigm. Thus, the only way to escape this "problem" is via the formation of a compulsory world government with ultimate jurisdiction. It would seem thus that Con's own solution to the problem doesn't even function as such. On the off chance that Con actually defends world government, it still wouldn't amount to much since utilitarian considerations can certainly be shown to favor multiple legal systems over a single-State system. I'll save that argument depending on Con's response here.

(3) Con's third problem here doesn't require as much attention since I don't think it was meant exactly as an argument in itself, more it seemed like a weak justification of why States aren't as bad as anarchists think. One may look at instances of liberal democracy and think they seem to function relatively well. Utilitarian considerations needs not always be present however. Natural rights anarchists may still be hostile to the State due to the existence of institutionalized theft (taxation), aggression (in keeping a compulsory monopoly over the provision of the State's respective services). (see the Pro case for more exposition) Furthermore, even utilitarian considerations support statelessness as a viable alternative. The inefficiency of political choice (found in public choice theory considerations[3]) as opposed to market choice (embodied in market laws such as supply and demand as well as the possibility of resource allocation) serves as powerful utilitarian reasoning to anarchism.

Market objections.

(1) Con's first problem he runs into is a simple misunderstanding of how markets work. Con first jumps from a contingent set of events (which Con never shows to be necessary, much less likely) to a supposed universal law of social interaction which is itself an untenable methodology. Next, Con completely ignores the existence of multiple producers in the market before the advent of things like anti-trust while also employing an incredibly superfluous account of market processes. On the latter, Con has yet to show why (a) 100% of consumers must necessarily always go to a single producer (different preferences lends to multiple producers), (b) why low prices are the end all (juxtaposed with quality, consumer loyalty, etc.), or (c) why simply lowering them necessitates a full switch of most consumers to another product. Con's example if far from "realistic".

(2) The second error in Con's analysis lies in his equivocation of all monopolies.. A single producer A voluntarily (meaning because consumers voluntarily choose to associate with A and not B) coming into monopoly for a various service isn't the same as a State. Therefore, Con's equivocation ("...a monopoly on prices and products is introduced no different form than the market system we currently have in place as a "Monopoly".) doesn't prove anything. The anarchist political project is in conflict not with sole producers per se , but with aggressive producers (i.e., a producer that arrogates to itself a monopoly on the provision of a given service by force of threat of force). Con's scenario, even if successful in its unlikely conclusion (i.e., a sole producer) doesn't even prove what Con thinks it does.





I am going to start my case in this round, but first I will briefly cover my opponents responses to my objections to his ideas on Anarchy.


ETHICS (my opponents case)
First off my opponent makes some assertions about power, and state theft through taxation etc. In the same statement my opponent said that government hide theft through taxes. I find this statement highly un-warranted however. To start, paying taxes is not required. However, to be able to hold a job, buy merchandise that's essential to our living, we opt into paying taxes. While most people have a problem with taxes though, they do hold their purposes. Many people rely on government for security, financial help, and education purposes. Taxation can be a pocket pain, but overall is not a compelling enough argument to lead into anarchy. Also I would prefer a better explanation on how use of force is given from a governmental standpoint, un-fairly given I am defending democracy government operations (as I made clear in R1). It seems Con is equating Democracy with communism, in which there is a vast and noticeable difference.
Also I am confused as to where you are going with the "power" explanation, and failed to see how it helped the point you are supposed to be making in your case. Nonetheless, I will continue.

This is an easy one, as Con never really answered the problem, or provided a solution to the method of hypocrisy I explained.
"Anarchism proposes freely competing providers of defense against invasion of property, not an unrestricted group of aggressors who think themselves the only ones capable of providing said service."
What I want to know is how this system will work? You never answer the important problems. My main question, is that in order for this legal system to be put in place, there must be a standard for determining what is right, and what is wrong, is there not? Or is that standard to be made freely by the composers of Justice? That's why I associate your volunteer group with "vigilantes". Here's the thing; you really that a code of justice must be utilized in order to sustain the benefits of justice, and protection of human rights. The problem is you have a hard time tying that into making anarchism works, as monopolies are commonly associated with organized groups. So when you respond without a proposal or plan of action, it seems as if you are making a statement that simply carries no weight, or warrant. So we agree a means of keeping justice in place is required. If you detest your volunteer group be associated as vigilantes, then you must believe in some sort of moral code that needs to be sustained in their duties. That's where the problem lies. In fact your volunteer group is more dangerous than any legal system America has in place, due to un-stability. In order to manufacture a system that can be equally fair, and upholding of every one's values, a system of order needs to be effective. A leaderless group of people hoping to do right, just make a mess of things, and violate people's freedom. A standard needs to be set. The standard in our government is not perfect, but it is effective in stopping crime, and protecting human rights, and thus meets the qualifications as a benefit to law enforcement. All your volunteer group can ever accomplish is vigilantism. Again, A system and explanation for your pre-supposed planned would be appreciated.
Also @ the one world government argument. No I am not arguing for one world government. I never said other systems work perfectly either. I am talking about a system where a majority can reach a conclusion on the fairness of enforcement (democracy). What exactly do you do in a situation where there is no standard of agreement? The Democracy is the most effective solution with law enforcement as it accomplishes the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, where a systemless rag tag group of volunteering anarchists, can never compare.

My opponent seems to think that my example is failing of how a monopoly in the market industry is formed, however, my example was a minor example that leads into how big corporations are established, that are often associated with being Monopolies. Pro also still fails to answer this problem. When people require social trade to live, what's to stop a society into building business, systems that can easily be formed into monopolies? I understand your point is strictly talking about threat of force. While I don't know what specific circumstance you equate this too, I must ask how this can be prevented in an anarchy system.
****MY CASE****

C1: Societies existing outside of anarchism have more benefits.

Today it is my job to prove how systems opposing anarchism are better, and point out the flaws in anarchism. While in the objections to anarchy I have provided reasons as to in-effectively, and hypocrisy of anarchism, during my case today I will be aiming at proving the negatives to Anarchy.
In anarchism, there can never really be a plan, as having a plan to stabilize anarchism defeats the point. That's where most of my enthusiasm at the hypocrisy of the Instigators ideals on reform anarchism comes in so deeply.
Democracy has benefits that Anarchism couldn't hope to do.
In a Democracy, people have the power to vote on any politician, with various issues that take effect on societal well being. The fate of the country lies then, inside of the hands of a majority of like minded people who find fairness actions taken. This cannot hope to be accomplished in an anarchist society. Lives cannot be influenced, helped, or sustained through the lack of a system. Anarchism relies on people relying on themselves for survival. Then comes the problem of integrating Anarchism into a society, where no one knows how to live outside of reliance on other people, and organizations.
Anything that an anarchy system could hope to achieve can be achieved through Democracy.
In a democracy all citizens are free before the law. All citizens have equal right to power, and freedom. In an anarchist environment, freedom and power can easily be taken away or effected by other. A volunteer legal system is un-effective, in regards that they very well be the effecting factor of such privileges. No one gets a word in how anything is operated, thus making life dependent on survivability. This is dangerous, and benefitless to any human being without a fail proof plan such things.


C2: Anarchy illusions.

There are many illusions that anarchists see in an established environment.

"Anarchism is theoretically impoverished. For almost 80 years, with the exceptions of Ukraine and Spain, anarchism has played a marginal role in the revolutionary activity of oppressed humanity. Anarchism had almost nothing to do with the anti-colonial struggles that defined revolutionary politics in this century. This marginalization has become self-reproducing. Reduced by devastating defeats to critiquing the authoritarianism of Marxists, nationalists and others, anarchism has become defined by this gadfly role."

Other great info in this source (

Anarchy ensues vision of freedom, stress, and oppression. It doesn't take a lot to realize that all can be pursued inside a controlled systematically Democracy. that promises us that freedom, and protection. Anarchy is filled with lack of proper plans to commit to these same values. Any implementation of planning defeats the purpose of anarchy. So how could a system that is played by ear ever work? How can everyone benefit mutually, and how can those benefits secede that of a Democracy?

I had more I want to add in the next round, but am out of characters for now. Look forward to my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 2


Pro case: Argumentation Ethics (AE).

First it should be noted that Con hasn't countered the conclusions of AE at all. Therefore I take it that he concedes the fact that arguments in favor of coercion/theft/et al are argumentatively contradicting and incoherent. Con's problem isn't with AE, it's with the notion that States are coercive in the first place. Let's deal with that here.

Con first claims that people opt in to paying taxes. The only problem with this assertion is that it is blatantly false in that taxes are simply levied over people. No one ever actually contract the State for its services, in fact, it's not even an option since people are simply coerced into doing so as a result of their geographical location. Opting into something implies that one has a choice to do otherwise. This choice is non-existent in the case of the State. I'm also assuming Con will run the social contract as a counter to this so I'll respond to it now. No one alive actually signed any social contract. The quasi-real contracts found in things like the Constitution weren't signed by anyone currently living, therefore it can't be binding on them. Statists are special pleading in designating special considerations for "social contracts" that would be absurd when applied to anything else (ex. everyone has to buy groceries from the same store because a group of now-dead people signed them up to without their consent).

Con's second claim (that taxes are used for useful purposes) is furthermore irrelevant since the purpose of AE is to show that taxation and other forms of coercion are a priori unjustifiable, not that they can't be put to good use. I can take your wallet and go feed homeless children but it doesn't change the fact that the act of aggression in itself was wrong.

It should be noted also that Con has no room to argue for the State being non-coercive or non-aggressive since that's specifically what is rooted into the agreed upon definition in R1. A "State" was defined as: "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)." States are definitionally aggressive. Whether one thinks that aggression is justified is another matter (that claim being subject to the AE point).

Con Case: (A) Hypocrisy.

(1) Con seems to drop my counter that his definition of "volunteer groups" is flawed, yet he continue to operate as if that was the correct definition. Let me explain again in a bit more detail then. Anarchists don't support random groups of vigilantes going around stopping criminals. Under AnCap, people are free to contract private organizations for defense services and arbitration. Due to space constraints (and me not wanting this debate to turn into me simply explaining the whole time as opposed to actually debating), I offer some articles that go into more detail[1][2][3]. So far, most of Con's points only deal with anarchist defense as if it was roaming groups of vigilantes, something far from what is theoretically conceived of under anarchist legal theory.

(2) Con just seems to drop my one world government reductio. All he says is that that's not what he supports. That wasn't really the point I had in mind though. The point was to show that States can't be a solution to Con's point unless he admits that freely competing standards of justice are a workable solution. Just throwing in this problem and than ignoring the fact that it's applicable to anything short of a one world government isn't an argument.

(3) Con's new "instability" point is a bit confusing on my end due to the fact that he just seems to throw the word around without substantiation. I'll respond to this along with his also ambiguous "moral code" point. First, it's not clear why freely competing defense/arbitration services is a priori more unstable than freely competing States. The only difference is that the former doesn't violate AE and that holds no coercive monopoly on location. Con has so far completely failed to show why exactly this leads to instability. On moral codes, again Con has failed to explain why non-monopolies mean no one holds to a moral code and furthermore why this makes defense and arbitration impossible. It just seems like Con is mistaking anarchism for a lack of order.

Con Case: (B) Market objections.

Con has refused to add further justification for his supposed law of monopolist economics. When pressed, he simply claims that his example leads into a larger picture of how corporations attain monopolies. Okay, but Con hasn't responded to my contingency vs. law point, my point regarding how dropping prices doesn't necessitate monopolies, and my point regarding the mere presupposition on Con's part regarding whether any corporation who attracts customers must for some reason attract all of them. Con's question of how monopolies can be avoided in anarchy is a loaded one since anarchists don't claim that they never could form. The anarchist political program as I said earlier is one opposed to violence and coercion. And like I also said earlier, a monopoly forming as a result of free trade/contract isn't opposed to this.

Con Case: (C) Cost/Benefit Analysis.

Con's first point is that there can be no planning in anarchism. First, this is blatantly false. See the definition of anarchism provided in R1 or anything I've been saying throughout this entire debate for further proof of this. His next point is just as flawed wherein he argues that anarchism means "relying on themselves for survival". Okay I'm sure Con hasn't been reading the debate if he takes this to be the case. Anarchism doesn't mean we live like hermits in our houses. It means that the roles currently arrogated to the State (those non-coercive in theory at least) are taken over by voluntary groups of people cooperating for their mutual benefit. Con's conception of statelessness is thus completely unwarranted. People can surely rely on other people and organizations of people, just not organizations or people that use coercion as a means to their end. For any example of this type of relationship, see charities, churches, businesses, etc.

On democracy, Con fallaciously assumes that he can just theorize into existence his ideal State. If he can do this then why can't I. Con is simply ignoring the empirical reality of States and brushing them off as not what he supports. According to this flawed methodology, I can simply brush off bad examples of statelessness and only support good examples. But obviously no one would allow this. Con's other claims as to people only depending on how well they can survive, the unsupported supposition that everyone is left voiceless, and the also unsupported supposition that anarchism equates to unplanned chaos all evince Con's lack of understanding of what he's arguing against.

Con Case: (D) Anarchy Illusions.

Con not only presents a non-argument (that anarchists aren't influential) but his point that democracies can fulfill everything anarchists want is simply false in that States are themselves coercive, the entire thing anarchists don't want. Furthermore, Con's utter confusion as to what anarchist support is surprising. An example of this is when Con claims that planning defeats the purpose of anarchy. Um, what? Not only is that not at all a part of the definition of anarchism and anarchist theory that I provided in R1 (and have thus far supported) but it's striking that Con seems to think that one can't plan anything without a State doing so. Perhaps Con means overarching, coercive social planning in which case he'd at least have a coherent point. In that case though I just refer him to AE (showing that his argument is itself incoherent) and the fact that he hasn't alluded to anything specifically showing monocentric, coercive control to be necessary for the existence of society.



My opponents conduct in the last round was very dis-appointing, I must say.
While the BOP for this debate is shared, I feel I have added more against Anarchism, then he has added for Anarchism. The point of this debate was for me to find "compelling" arguments against Anarchism, which I have more than met to such a standard thus far. However, the most vexing part is this: Pro claims that I have an incomplete understanding of his philosophy on anarchy (this is untrue, but I digress). The problem is, pro consistently evades putting forth a proper plan into supporting his untraditional views on Anarchism. My job is to prove how benefits to Democracy outweighs those of Anarchism, that I have done. While Pro consistently argues that democracy is a flawed system (I never said it was perfect, in fact, all I intend to do is prove that Anarchism is more flawed than Democracy). Pro has supported very little of his case for anarchism for this debate. Pro in the rebuttal said anarchy can have a plan (I agree, my statement meant that some anarchists believe it cannot), and that's what I want to hear from the Pro, that we we can REALLY get this debate started. So for the following round, I strongly urge the Pro to do this if he has any hope for winning this debate.
Onto the arguments.

Pro is stating I have dropped his point on theft, however, I assure you that this is his mis-understanding of my argument. In fact my argument was, and stands as the Democratic system not committing theft, as I explained in the previous round. The Pro obvious realizes that, as he brought up a point conflicting with my argument that the Democratic system has a beneficial reasons for taxing. So this is proof that the whole "My opponent dropped this therefore concedes it" is a very saddening attempt at manipulating the audience into a quick vote. Since I am on this point anyway, however, I will explain how this is NOT theft. The pro states that we do not have a choice to opt into taxes. This is blatantly FALSE. You feel like you have to get a social security number, for better job security, protection from the government, and involvement in anything in adjusting leadership positions, IE voting, all privileges of citizenship etc. These are the benefits of paying taxes, and again, we do have a choice to opt out.
Opting out is not a very wise idea, however, it defeats the purpose of the theft point. Also I don't even care about this point anyway. Despite my opponents complaints on supposed theft, it doesn't matter. My question is how does anarchism create a better solution? Without protection (your form of 'protection is malleable, flawed, and systemless, thus failing; more on that later), financial security, and freedoms guaranteed through leadership, what benefit is there to anarchism?
There's a reason, such a great amount of people choose to become citizens.
Finally, though, is paying taxes so bad that it justifies anarchy? Given this is your only contention, it seems that this is the what justifies the extreme unknown of anarchism. Unknown, because you have failed to accurately define how your system would:
1. Work, providing the same, or better benefits Democracy does. (Also notes that pro agrees that there are benefits to paying taxes in the previous round)
2. Fix the solution with Anarchy.
Con's point on aggression fails, as well given I have proven that 'theft' doesn't actually occur.

Another "dropped point" accusation huh? Let me explain again, how false this is. You defining your volunteer groups is irrelevant. It's your definition of them, that I am arguing is hypocritical, IE not anarchism.
Since you still don't understand me, let me say this simply.
1. You are adopting a police force into a society of people who are supposed to detest leadership, and fend for them selves.
2. Trying to provide a justice system into anarchism is pointless. Without adopting a system similar to the one a Democracy owns, justice will be completely subjective, and dictated by the leaders of the association, which violates the justice of individuals in said anarchist society.
3. If you believe in systemed policing, and adopting moral utility, serving justice to the means of all individuals, as it seems you do, then you have un-intentionally agreed that a Democracy is better (you have been doing this the whole time, which is the point of this contention).
Pro's suggestion in the one world government ideals, are irrelevant for the following reasons.
Yes, I believe the current system we have in place.
Yes, I also believe other systems are still BETTER than anarchism.
Yes, my purpose in this debate is to do nothing more, than to find compelling objections against Anarchism, not other governments. So this entire point is meaningless, regardless of my belief in one world governing.
Next, what I am talking about with the instability is, that any stability in this force again, is hypocrisy, as the stability needed to sustain a society, leads back into Democracy. Anarchism is self defeating, I am literally just repeating myself now.

"And like I also said earlier, a monopoly forming as a result of free trade/contract isn't opposed to this."
I thought monopolies were the problem? You claim it's only government involved monopolies on taxes, etc. I have proven that the monopoly is beneficial, and opted into.
You are now saying the same thing for market monopolies. This is you agreeing that Monopolies are guaranteed to happen, even in an anarchist society. If these are okay, and have just as much control as government monopolies if not worse, and even have more control, then what's so wrong with "government monopolies"?

As I said Earlier, my statement on planning in anarchism is derived from the popular belief of such a principle (Cody Franklin also said this in the same forum I debated you about it). No I am not saying anarchism cannot have a plan, I am saying the opposite. I am saying that it needs one, and I am saying that YOU need to provide it in order to support your case. I am going to ignore the rest of that paragraph, as it is a mis-conception of what I actually said.
"On democracy, Con fallaciously assumes that he can just theorize into existence his ideal State. If he can do this then why can't I."
Not at all. In fact, For this debate, and my stance on Democracy, I don't have t theorize it into existence. All I have to do is sustain why what we already have in existence is better than your alternative: Anarchism. Your burden is to prove the opposite. You have failed to do this, continue to prove how anarchism solves the problems propose, and further continue to show a lacking of ability to prove anarchism's overall superiority to Democracy. Thus I object to anarchism, if Democracy is more successful.

In this, Pro just repeats himself the previous point (quite peeving actually). Again, in order for pro to substantiate his objection to my statement he needs to proportionate a better response for benefits to anarchy, and also define how Anarchy supersedes Democracy.
I would like to remind the audience, that Pro has literally only 1 point against Democracy, 1 that I even proved false. This leaves him with literally nothing to argue with against anarchy being the illusion it is. Without proper support to back up his claim, this point stands.

Good luck to my opponent in the final round.
Debate Round No. 3


socialpinko forfeited this round.


Unfortunately my opponent was not able to make the last round of this debate. l understand that he has been busy with schoool work and other things. l thank him for instigating this debate.

all of my previous arguments are thus extended. according to round 1 rules dropped argument will count as a concession in this debate. thanks for reading everyone.
Debate Round No. 4
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
@ spinko. I'm not about to debate you within the comments section, but I think you mis-understand my arguements a little. Anyways, good luck with school mate.
Posted by socialpinko 3 years ago
@TUF, I'd love to redo this at some point. Sorry about the forfeit, college and all that. But perhaps we could restrict the resolution a bit more to a specific argument for/against States. I think perhaps the argumentation ethics point simply because you didn't actually respond to it. Meaning you just said who cares, States have better consequences anyways. The whole point of AE is to point out that you can't appeal just to consequences since the very act of defending coercion/theft constitutes a performative contradiction in itself.
Posted by RoyLatham 3 years ago
Pro said dropped arguments are a concession, then forfeited R4. So I don't think a lopsided vote due to forfeiture is a vote bomb.
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
Congrats! Good luck man!
Posted by socialpinko 3 years ago
My first day's tomorrow too. #God_did_it
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
Wanted to respond tonight... Hmm..

First day of class tomorrow, and I only get 7 hours of sleep. Probably not a good idea lol.
Posted by Thaddeus 3 years ago

@john - your objection certainly does not meet the criteria of being compelling
Posted by johnlubba 3 years ago
I object.
Posted by tvellalott 3 years ago
Anarchy = no planning? Oh dear.
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
I assumed that would be the case :/
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 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:34 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F. & counter D.D.
Vote Placed by DoctorDeku 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I should have check to see if there were any forfeits before reading, now I'm just disappointed I didn't get to read the final round :(
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Anarchism has quite a burden to take it out of the category of a fanciful theory. It's like arguing at if everyone adopted a particular religion that the world would be a great place. Pro needed solid examples of success to prove that his arguments were true. Con did well enough in attacking this weakness, including sources, to prevail. Pro loses conduct for the forfeit, and by his rule 1 concedes the arguments he thereby dropped.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 3 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 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: Counter VB. I'll change my vote after reading.
Vote Placed by tmar19652 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Ff