The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Could anarchism work?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
libertatem has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 461 times Debate No: 98476
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Hello, in this thread I will be attempting to prove that a centralized authority structure is not required for order and civility to be maintained within society. My hopes are that someone on this platform will be able to provide factual and compelling contradictions to my thesis, and possibly change my viewpoints by ultimately proving me as well as my statement incorrect. My stance on the issue aforementioned is in favor of anarchism respectively, and I will be providing a considerable amount of evidence to support this ideology. One of the most common arguments against anarchism is that there will be "nobody to build the roads." This is simply suggesting that without a state, socialized services such as the construction of public roadways, schools, fire stations, etc would not be built and maintained due to lack of state funding. This statement is fallacious for a multitude of reasons. In a true anarchist society, the market would replace the state in the funding of public services and institutions. Property owners will construct roads and provide other services aforementioned and operate them in exchange for payment by the general public. Privatization will not only replace the need for taxation, but the state as well. In order for people to have access to these services, they will be required to pay a small amount of money after a specific amount of time. This is a free society's version of taxation, with the exception being that it is entirely voluntary. Another common argument against anarchism is that there will be no police to provide protection. This problem can also be solved by using the magical and all-knowing free market. Privatized police departments will replace state police and offer protection for the public and their property in exchange for payment with what money would have originally gone to taxes had there been a state in this scenario. I will debunk more examples of common arguments against this ideology when my opponent acknowledges them.


By default, in ANY FUNCTIONAL governing structure, there must a leader. Without a leader there's always going to be a struggle for power because when the 2 parties inevitably disagree, there will be no authority to make a final decision. Without authority to make a final decision, the society/relationship will implode. This is the reason why today's marriages end in divorce. The authority structure has no male leader. Instead, in feminist societies, the male and female constantly compete for authority and thus the relationship ends in divorce or cheating.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.