The Instigator
ihartman2
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
brodude12
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

anarcho capitalism would lead to despotic statism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
brodude12
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/5/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,175 times Debate No: 24590
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

ihartman2

Pro

here's why:

1. Working for a boss creates obedient habits of mind, that will lead to dependence on authority.

2. Capital will come into the hands of a few, and those few will become the ruling class.

3. Capital requires as state to defend private property.

4. Natural disasters will cause the populace to give power to 1 company, that will keep power after the disaster is over.
brodude12

Con

1. Working for a boss does not create obedient habits of mind, it creates a clear chain of command and authority, something that is as natural as breathing. Even in the wild, animals require leadership, thus the existence of an alpha male.

2. Capital comes into the hands of those who earn it, as it does not fall from trees. These will not become the ruling class, simply the most wealthy. If democracy is maintained, these people would have no power other than that which their economic status grants them.

3. Capital requires security to defend itself, and since capital can buy security, the formation of a state is not necessary at all.

4. Natural disasters require coordination, and that is what government gives. However, this government does not need to be all-powerfull, it must be of the people and for the people.
Debate Round No. 1
ihartman2

Pro

1. Working for a boss does not create obedient habits of mind, it creates a clear chain of command and authority, something that is as natural as breathing. Even in the wild, animals require leadership, thus the existence of an alpha male.

2. Capital comes into the hands of those who earn it, as it does not fall from trees. These will not become the ruling class, simply the most wealthy. If democracy is maintained, these people would have no power other than that which their economic status grants them.

3. Capital requires security to defend itself, and since capital can buy security, the formation of a state is not necessary at all.

4. Natural disasters require coordination, and that is what government gives. However, this government does not need to be all-powerfull, it must be of the people and for the people.

1. Capitalism creates the need for leadership, and then calls it human nature. Little kids do not form hierarchies until they are sent to school, where they experience it for 12 years.

2. The market values efficiency, so capital will gravitate into fewer hands because they can manage it better. In a city people will gravitate to one butcher who can offer something better than the other 12.

3. The state is a private property defense agency, but using patriotism and its other functions to hide this.

4. Look at the patriot act, passed in a disaster but used for tyranny, in libertarian communism their would be a society of free equals who practiced mutual aid already. Look at the solidarity networks in greece
brodude12

Con

1. Humans do not form hierarchies because they are forced to, but because it is necessary. A world where everyone is equal is the world of dreams. And most people require leadership because in times of problems, they cannot make decisions for themselves. This is why people that can make those decisions lead us. These people are chosen fairly in most cases, by democratic election.

2. This is a competitive economy, where you need to offer more to the clients in order to get more. If the money gravitates to the few, it is because they are more intelligent and they earned it.

3. The state is meant to maintain order and organize the populace, but most of all help them in times of need. The government is a public organization, and it is meant to protect the interests of it's people.

4. Are you suggesting communism as a new form of government? Because history shows us that it is simply not a viable alternative.
Debate Round No. 2
ihartman2

Pro

1. Humans do not form hierarchies because they are forced to, but because it is necessary. A world where everyone is equal is the world of dreams. And most people require leadership because in times of problems, they cannot make decisions for themselves. This is why people that can make those decisions lead us. These people are chosen fairly in most cases, by democratic election.

2. This is a competitive economy, where you need to offer more to the clients in order to get more. If the money gravitates to the few, it is because they are more intelligent and they earned it.

3. The state is meant to maintain order and organize the populace, but most of all help them in times of need. The government is a public organization, and it is meant to protect the interests of it's people.

4. Are you suggesting communism as a new form of government? Because history shows us that it is simply not a viable alternative.

1. How do you explain the pre capitalist systems where hierarchy was non existent: chiapan peasants, the common land and villages that operated largely without leaders in medieval Europe. Also, children do not form hierarchy until they get to school, where it is shoved down their throats.

2. Yes, but the consumers will go to a store that can sell more products for less, allowing this store to take over its competition making it the dominant company in the area.

3. I'll give my evidence look them up: Battle of Blair Mountain, Colorado war, Anti-Renter movement, Dorr Rebellion, Nicaragua coup de'et, Soviet killings of dissidents, Kent State, the Spanish American War (fought for control of Cuban sugar), police against the IWW, riots of 1877, draft riots, and many more

4. anarchist communism: http://libcom.org...
brodude12

Con

1. Saying that hierarchies were non-existent in medieval Europe is wrong. The feudal system that was enforced in those times had hierarchy at it's heart. The peasants had barons over them, who in turn had to pay taxes to the king. And this is only the most simple interpretation. Of course children form hierarchies naturally. There is always one kid in the playground who has more toys, and who the others want to play with more.

2. Perhaps, but then the other stores could sell even more products for the same money. And, there are many other factors apart from price which influence the store a customer chooses to buy from.

3. I said that the state was meant to protect the interests of it's people, not that it always did. It would be difficult to find a country that does not have problems, but that is because the leaders become corrupted and ignore the needs of their people.

4. It is very difficult to choose a system of government, because they are all flawed. However, communism has never worked. It has not worked in Russia, China, Cuba or anywhere. It is a vision of a world if humans were perfect, but we are not. In the end, it always ends in dictatorship.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ihartman2 4 years ago
ihartman2
I was saying that medieval villages were anarchies only with authorities pressing on them from above, like their was no leader of the village, but a lord came and took grain.

What I meant was that a private contractor that defends property doesn't have the legitimacy gained by a state, its easier to see the cops we're trained to respect haul out some squatters than a private contractor.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
1. On dependence on authority, I thought that Con's arguments were proven wrong up until Pro asserted that medieval societies didn't have hierarchies which is proven false with reference to the Feudal system. Con failed to adequately show that we necessarily need leaders or that relying on a hierarchal chains of command doesn't create a sense of obedience to those higher up in the hierarchy. Point to Pro.

2. On wealth inequality, Con's only refutation was that the few deserved the money granted under capitalism while Pro's point is that it would happen, plain and simple. Pro wasn't arguing that the rich didn't earn their money. The contention simply stated that the process of wealth accumulation on the part of the few was an inherent part of capitalism and Con never attempted to refute this point so it goes to Pro.

3. On the point of defense, this got sidetracked easily. It began simple enough with Con asserting that security wasn't a service which could only be provided by the State which went unrefuted. Pro's argument that the State is just a security agency fails to take into consideration the categorical differences between States and regular businesses. Besides that though, the contention devolved into whether or not the State was good at it's job with Con for some reason arguing the affirmative. But it was his burden to defend anarcho capitalism, not the State so that was confusing. Point to Con though for his rebuttal in R1 concerning the differentiation between government and security.

4. On emergency power and historical examples, this point equally goes to Pro since Con never actually made a rebuttal that pertained to anarcho communism (which is what Pro was defending). Con made the classic mistake of assuming all Communist organizational setups were the same, ignoring the State-anarchist distinction. Therefore China and the USSR aren't exactly viable examples or refutations of the society that Pro was forwarding.

3:1 to Pro.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
ihartman2brodude12Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by MouthWash 4 years ago
MouthWash
ihartman2brodude12Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con adequately rebutted all of Pro's claims. Very simple debate.