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

DDO Tier Tournament Take Two: A Liberal Social Democracy is Preferable to Anarchy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: Judge Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/13/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,389 times Debate No: 56519
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (5)




Resolved: A Liberal Social Democracy is Preferable to Anarchy

Debate Details:
Round One of the DDO Tournament Take Two, Middle Tier. (

Tournament Judges:
Mikal: (
YYW: (
orangemayhem: (
bladerunner060: (
Blade-of-Truth: (

Debate Competititors:
FuzzyCatPotato is Affirming the resolution. (
kbub is Negating the resolution. (

Debate Rules:
Character limit: 10,000/round
Posting time: 48 hr/round
Burden of Proof: Shared

Debate Schedule:
Rd. 1:
Rd. 2: New arguments and rebuttals.
Rd. 3: New arguments and rebuttals.
Rd. 4: Rebuttals and summary.

Debate Definitions:
Liberal Democracy: Democracy with an emphasis on a high level of rights of citizens
Social Democracy: Democracy with an emphasis on a high level of financial support of disadvantaged citizens that also retains capitalism and corporations
Preferred: Better
Anarchy: A lack of government
Government: An entity with a monopoly on legitimate violence

Note A: The definitions were (mostly) agreed on before the round started.
Note B: "Preferred" is left vague so that "we can define in round what we think is important".
Note C: My opponent will "choose one or more subclasses of anarchy as the debate goes".

Thanks to all readers, to our judges, and to my opponent.


I accept FuzzyCatPotato's excellent invitation. Best of luck!
Debate Round No. 1


Again, thanks to all readers, to our judges, and to my opponent.


Values Debate: Prefer Utilitarianism

How do we know which society is "better"? To objectively know, we must determine which has more value.

Value "denotes something's degree of importance, with the aim of determining what ... is best to do," [01]. Value is that which is ethically significant, and an ultimate value or values would be the most ethically significant value, to which all other values are subservient.

To attempt to determine what the ultimate value is, living sentient entities attempt to construct ethical systems. However, because living sentient entities have limited knowledge, we cannot know which, if any, of the ethical systems available is/are perfect, and thus we don't know what, if anything, is actually valuable.

In this dearth of knowledge, we must attempt to maximize the chance that we can determine what the ultimate value is. Thus, we must keep the maximum number of sentient entities alive and ensure their maximum ability to make reason, because only living sentient entities are likely to significantly increase the probability that we can determine what the ultimate value is. (Because non-living entities and non-sentient entities don't usually develop or test ethical or scientific theories, and both of those actions are vital for increasing available knowledge and the chance of ascertaining ultimate value.) Further, if an ultimate value is determined, then only living sentient entities would be able to act towards it.

Thus, we must value:

1. Maximizing the number of living sentient entities, and

2. Maximizing the capability of living entities to reason

Utilitarianism best achieves these goals, because it values both keeping the maximum number of living sentient entities alive (because life is a prerequisite for utility and determining ultimate value) and in maximizing potential utility by giving living sentient entities long, interconnected, educated, scientifically engaged, relatively comfortable, and relatively free lives (because a high quality of life, high level of knowledge, and high level of productivity increase utility both for the person and society in general, and thus increase the probability of determining ultimate value).

As such, we should prefer whichever society maximizes utility, in order to maximize the probability of determining ultimate value.


2P2: Liberal Social Democracy Increases Economic Growth While Anarchy Decreases It

2P1A: Economic Growth Increases Utility

Economic growth is "an increase in the amount of goods and services produced per head of the population over a period of time," [02].

Economic growth is the only way to increase available resources [03], and is thus key to higher living standards [03], more economically and culturally open societies [03], better education [04], technological growth [05], lifespan [06][07], and even the environment [08]. Thus, economic growth increases utility and the probability of determining ultimate value, and thus whichever society better increases technological growth should be preferred.

To simplify: A world of scientists and industrialists is more likely to be able to find the ultimate value, when a world of subsistence farmers is not. Economic growth is key to the former.

2P1B: Organized Capitalist Society Helps Economic Growth

Economic output and world population combined from 0 CE to 1700 CE grew at about 0.1% per year [09], a period oft dominated by non-free markets and poverty. However, as technological progress, open markets, and centralized governments rose, so did growth, averaging 0.8% economic output growth and 0.8% population growth from 1700-2012 [09].

Research and education are especially linked to Liberal Social Democracy. Neither happens in a void, but instead require funding. Anarchy cannot guarantee funding (whether private or public), and thus cannot guarantee education or research.

Liberal Social Democracy helps to resolve the problems of capitalism, or those of disenfranchisement and inequality. By providing assistance to the impoverished, education to all, and various other services, as well as using progressive taxation, Liberal Social Democracy prevents those who don’t benefit as much from capitalism from being unduly harmed by it. In contrast, Anarchy cannot redistribute or even help the poor in a systematic manner.

2P1C: Anarchy Causes Crime and Hurts Economic Expansion

Anarchy makes doing business much riskier. Because a government is, “An entity with a monopoly on legitimate violence,” a lack of government would necessitate that no entities (not even corporations or militias) have a monopoly on legitimate violence. There can be no systematic enforcement of laws in an anarchy, or else it is not anarchy.

Because a significant factor in choosing to commit crime is the possibility of getting away with it [10], crime rates would significantly increase if it was possible to get away with it. We see this in the past, when enforcement of laws was much less possible [11][12]. Seeing as these levels of homicide were present in moderately-organized societies, we can expect a far higher level in less organized and more anarchic societies.

Very few people in this situation would create businesses or perform research. Why would you produce products, when you could be murdered and all you’ve worked for stolen? If you don’t stand to make a profit or achieve something, it’s likely that you won’t attempt to conduct business.

This would lead either of the following:

A: a breakdown of larger society into small groups of survivors who trust each other, much like the tribal bands of pre-civilization, and/or

B: groups of people would form to protect others

A would halt large-scale commerce and science, because groups would be isolated, the population reduced, and research unfunded. This forfeits essentially all economic growth, and thus puts people in a pre-historic state of high mortality and low productivity.

B would mean that anarchy has failed, and that a government (an entity with a monopoly on violence) has risen.

Conversely, in a Liberal Social Democracy, people must follow the rules, or face sanctions from the government. This has had quite positive rates on crime [11][12] and on economic growth.

Summary of 2P1:

Economic growth is good. Liberal Social Democracy allows for economic growth while combating its negative effects, while Anarchy has no or insignificant growth.


2P2: Liberal Social Democracy Protects Freedom While Anarchy Cannot

One of the most often-made arguments for anarchy is that it supposedly increases freedom by preventing exploitation by the government. However, this is rather questionable, because freedom can be violated by anybody, not just a governmental actor, and nongovernmental actors would be quite happy to violate people’s freedom if they can get away with it [11][12].

This makes the gain of freedom from anarchy small or negative as compared to Liberal Social Democracy, because the gained freedoms to not pay taxes or obey the government pale in comparison to the lost freedoms to not be stolen from or killed.

And because life is a prerequisite for freedom, it should be preferred to have less freedom in return for not being dead, because you would have no freedom if dead.


2P3: Anarchy Quickly Collapses While Liberal Social Democracy Does Not

A question for anarchists is this: If anarchy is all that it’s cracked up to be, why did people form governments?

Two answers are presented:

1. People are idiots, and want to stay comfortable even if they’re being exploited.

If this is true, then government is inevitable, regardless of whether it is better.

2. Government is actually preferable to nongovernment, at least for large societies.

If this is true, then government is better than anarchy, and should be preferred.

In either case, anarchy does not survive long in the wild.

Further, humans inherently form status hierarchies [13]. This means that we tend to group together and choose leaders, not least because this allows those of us who are a little smarter or a little better at managing others to put the talents of others to work better. As such, anarchies are extremely likely to collapse into government by giving one person power, and thus a monopoly on violence, and thus making him or her the leader of a government.

What happens when anarchy collapses? A government forms. But we don’t know what kind of government – it could be a theocracy or a totalitarian dictatorship as easily as a liberal social democracy or libertarian society. Choosing anarchy doesn’t give you anarchy, but a mystery box of governments. Why choose an alternative that might lead to an even worse form of government when a perfectly workable form of government exists?

On the other hand, democracies have done pretty well, and are still going strong 200 years after America, Britain, and France tried republican democracy [14].





[03] , p. 251.














Anarchy: A brief introduction
There are many different flavors of anarchism, but only one that popular culture buys into. In fact, a second definition of anarchism besides the one provided by Pro ("A lack of government") is "a violent transition." There are a few other reasons why people tend to associate violence, and none of which include anarchism being an actual violent ideology. The closest encounter people have with anarchism is during the transition period between state actors, which tends to be a violent period. In fact, this transition is not a true anarchy. A true anarchy is the realization of anarchism, which the world has not seen since the rise of imperialism. Anarchism in general is very rarely a violent ideology, although occasionally an anarchist will attempt to bring about the anarchist revolution, like most other revolutions, through violent means.

Luckily, during the course of this debate we do not need to discuss the transition to anarchy. Instead, we assume that the transition to LSD or anarchism is possible, and then compare the possible effects. Furthermore, the literature on anarchy is surprisingly diverse, which means that I cannot possibly defend all of these ideologies. Instead, I will choose one or more of the anarchist ideologies and discuss whether they would be better than an LSD government.

Veganarchy is the slang term for an ideology similar to green anarchy, but is anti-speciest. It can be said to be the anarchy version of deep ecology. Veganarchy critiques the human-centric calculus of economics and xenophobic nature of Statehood, and proposes instead an inclusive, communal practice that rejects the logic of statehood, economics (particularly capitalism), and anthrocentricism. Under veganarchy, life is valued in itself, rather than being reduced to a wealth measure.

Resource wars
In fact, anarchy is the best solution for preventing bloodshed. All wars of the United States have been resource wars in its entire history. These resource wars are inherent in state actors"the state is provisioned with making life as good as possible for ONLY those under its "care," which include only human citizens (and sometimes residents). This duty towards only internal residents is necessarily exclusive, which reduces consideration of the life and well-being of others to whatever bothers the residents. The "democracy" is a prime example of this ideology"only voters (only citizens) have power over international efforts. If the citizens are not bothered by the violence of others within the LSD, then that violence is acceptable. This means that all crimes against the "other" are acceptable, which leads finally to the historical resource wars. As resources are becoming scarcer, these effects will only be amplified"humankind will be reduced to soldiers and potential soldiers in a Hobbesian manner. People claim to want world peace, but as long as there is an LSD there can only be cyclical violence against the other.

Furthermore, capitalism further aggravates resource wars. Capitalism is the competition of resources, without regard for other concerns. The system of gains and losses in capitalism is extraordinarily problematic"including wealth and excluding things of more value, including happiness and quality of life of the world. It is in fact the idea of economics excluding concerns for nature and the nonhuman animal that we have the problems of global warming and environmental destruction in the first place"problems that seem to be accelerating rather than slowing down. Under that capitalist ideology, humanity is at the greatest risk for environmental destruction and is most devastating for life in general.

Under a capitalist system, persons are thrust into a cycle of endless consumerism. In order to become successful in a capitalist system, one must spark desire for products in other persons. In order to meet those desires, the consumer must create their own market enterprise, and thus consuming feeds into more consuming. Currently, these cycles of consumerism are structuring all kinds of violence associated with resources. In fact, there is enough food and resources to provide food and water to everyone in the world, but consumerism has prevented the actualization of this potential.
Furthermore, as companies become more efficient at consumerism, they begin competing for ways to use up resources more effectively"in short, they are in a rush to destroy the environment. Pollution, global warming, the murder of nonhuman animals and humans, and sex trafficking are all resultant due to the consumerist ideology. Veganarchy through a reinterpretation of "gains" and "losses" (a rejection of classic economics) solves for consumerism, and prevents violence, sex slavery, and the destruction of the planet.

Murder of nonhuman animals
Well over 10 billion animals are slaughtered in the US alone in one year. They are innocent and fully-conscious, and are killed merely for their tasty bodies. Their lives are reduced to a mere cash value, a perfect symbol for LSD. Veganarchy would prevent these slaughters, and instead search for the best solution for the earth, rather than humans citizens' wealth.

Colonialism came about as a result of the State and capitalism. It is the result of prioritizing the quality of life of one's own citizens over others. Colonialism and neocolonialism are the chief actors in bringing about the massive slavery of Africans, as well as racism and the genocide of millions of First Nations.

All genocides are results of Us/Them mentalities stemming from Statism, and are indeed committed by a government. Anarchy is the only way to approach the root of the problem of genocide and violence, rather than putting a bandaid on it.
Debate Round No. 2


I guess we're calling it LSD now. Ah well. =P

Sorry for lack of formatting, no time.

Oh boy. Biopower and cap K's and deep eco to boot.


Rebuttals of the Con Case



2CIA: "[A]narchism ... the world has not seen since the rise of imperialism."

1: Citation needed.

2: Con thus accepts no post-1700s anarchies as existing.

2CIB: "Anarchism ... is ... rarely a violent ideology[.]"

1: Citation needed.

2: I assert that anarchy leads to violence, not necessarily that supporting anarchy causes violence.

2CIC: "[A]ssume ... the transition to LSD or anarchism is possible, and ... compare[.]"

1: I accept.

2CID: "I ... choose one or more ... anarchist ideologies[.]"

1: I accept.


2CVD: Con doesn't explicitly define a value, but does consider the death, suffering, otherization, and/or sex traffiking of living beings and degradation of the environment to be immoral.

1: I have a basis in utilitarianism to consider these as immoral, because they generally harm utility. From which ethical system does Con draw this conclusion?


2C1: Veganarchy

1: Apply 2P3. Anarchy inevitably collapses (which would make this short-term anyways), and my opponent can't really determine which system it will collapse into, so we could end up with a system even worse than LSD.

2C1A: "Veganarchy is ... the anarchy version of deep ecology."

1: I accept.

2: Deep ecology is flawed: (If these are straw mans to my opponent's position, do tell.)

2A: Deep ecology believes that humans are not more important than or significantly different from other species, when (seeing as I've proven in 2PVD that intelligence is important to maximizing value) humans have a much higher encephalization quotient (read: brainpower to body size) than any other species, at ~7.4-7.8 EQ [1] to a bottlenose dolphin's ~4.14 [1], an "increase" of ~79-88%, which makes them quite a bit more valuable in the search for value and quite different in complexity of behavior.
From :
Brain comparison.

2B: Deep ecology believes that humans have become "apart" from nature, with the only major proof being that of the existence of industrialized society. However, there is no reason why the structures that humans build are any different from those built by beavers or wasps or bees or ants or termites or birds or cassidfly or chimpanzees or spiders or silkworms, except that we build bigger.

2C: Deep ecology believes that "nature" (a distinction that shouldn't exist) is inherently good, which is an appeal to nature and fallacious [2].

3: Isn't all deep eco anarchist, really?

2C1B: "Veganarchy critiques ... human-centric ... economics and xenophobic ... [s]tatehood, and proposes ... an inclusive, communal practice[.]"

1: Con must prove that it is possible to avoid a life-measured-in-numbers mentality AND that measuring life in numbers is immoral.

2: Humans naturally otherize [3][4], because death by foreigner dramatically reduces your chances of survival [3][4]. It's only with modern, multicultural society that we've really gotten away from this, and to destroy that would increase, not decrease, otherization. (How often does one think of feudalism or tribalism and of multiculturalism and acceptance of others? A move into anarchy and small communes, much like prehistoric tribes, would actually thus increase otherization.) Con must prove that statism is inherently otherizing, rather humans being inherently otherizing, AND that it is possible not to otherize.


2C2: Statism Causes Resource Wars

2C2A: "[A]narchy ... preventing bloodshed.

1: See 2P2C. Anarchy cannot prevent chaos.

2C2B: "All wars of the United States have been resource wars[.]"

1: Citation please.

2C2C: "[R]esource wars are inherent in state actors[.] .... [D]uty towards only internal residents is ... exclusive, which reduces consideration ... of others[.] ... [D]emocracy ... only voters ... have power[.] .... This means ... crimes against the "other" are acceptable, which leads ... to ... wars.

1: See 2C1B.2. Veganism would increase otherization.

2: Why wouldn't a small commune also only have a duty to members of that commune? If a small commune can have duties to all other small communes, why couldn't LSDs have duties to other LSDs? Why is solvency limited to veganarchy?

3: Further, democracies aren't so keen on war [5]. Perhaps because they feel kinship, perhaps because they're less likely to spend on weapons, perhaps because the people think that they, as common soldiers, are more likely to die in war than an autocrat thinks that he is. Perhaps because of the interdependent free trade that democracies like. The empirical truth remains. In a world with all LSDs, war would be very unlikely to occur. A world of all Veganarchies would avoid war, if only because the total population is so busy dieing at 30 years of disease and subsistence living that war takes too much effort.

2C2D: "[R]esources are becoming scarcer, these effects will only be amplified[.]"

1: Citation please.

2: Malthus said the same in 1798. 6 billion (and a few) people and 316 years later, we're doing pretty well. Human ingenuity seems to do pretty well in continually expanding the resource base. As we should know, given that our food quite likely was fed fertilizer using ammonia synthesized from the air.

3: Moreover, see 2P1A on how developed countries generally protect their environments even better then developing ones, suggesting perhaps that the modern economy isn't resource-starved.


2C3: Capitalism Causes Resource Wars

2C3A: "[C]apitalism ... aggravates resource wars."

1: Citation needed.

2: Capitalism wants more resources, yes. However, wars are generally unprofitable [6][7]. Capitalism encourages globalization, preferably peaceful globalization, because it's better for business. Why kill people when you can sell to them?

2C3B: [G]lobal warming and environmental destruction [are] ... accelerating[.]"

1: Citation needed.

2: See 2P1A. Wealthier economies reduce environmental destruction and have quite pleasant qualities of life.

3: Global warming is a problem. However, emissions reductions are entirely possible under a world-LSD-rule, given that regulation of carbon emission (through cap-and-trade or mandated reductions) is quite possible and economically feasible (and even profitable) [8].


2C4: Capitalism Causes Consumerism

2C4A: "[C]apitalist ... endless consumerism. .... [C]ycles of consumerism ... violence ... resources. ... [E]nough food and resources ... to everyone ... but consumerism[.]"

1: Capitalism probably does encourage consumerism. (Though a citation would be lovely.) However, consumerism isn't an economic system, but a cultural model. If we weren't so obsessed with profit but instead with philosophy or science, then consumerism would be seriously mitigated. Because capitalism CAN'T force you to think consumerist.

2: Why is consumerism bad? Why is it worse than the alternative, no products?

3: It's terrible that food isn't provided to everyone. However, this is often a result of the fact that other nations prevent access to produced food, or it is impossible to get food through post-anarchic regions, due to warlords and the like. In a world of all LSDs, distribution would be possible (and in fact necessary for the form of government).

2C4B: "Veganarchy ... solves for consumerism, and ... sex slavery[.]"

1: Veganarchy solves only because there's nothing to buy -- for example, no vaccines or healthcare or surplus food.

2: Why would sex slavery be solved? Without police, who's going to stop it?


2C5: "[O]ver 10 billion animals are slaughtered in the US alone ... fully-conscious[.]"

1: Citation needed.

2: I'm opposed to consumption of meat when it reduces agricultural efficiency. However, it's possible to be vegan in a LSD. In fact, a LSD could mandate it, through both very high taxes on meat, education of the ethical issues, and gradual elimination of meat consumption. In an anarchist commune, you can't mandate that nobody eat the monkeys, because there is no enforcement.


2C6: Statism Causes Colonialism

2C6A: "Colonialism ... a result of the [s]tate and capitalism."

1: Citation needed.

2: Colonialism would be prevented in a world of all LSDs, due to its economic inefficiency and the requirement of respect of other nation's citizens.


2C7: Statism Causes Genocide

2C7A: "All genocides are results of Us/Them mentalities stemming from Statism."

1: Citation needed.

2: See 2C1B.2. Veganarchy would increase otherization.

3: Pogroms. The Rwandan Civil War. A government is not required for genocide -- only hatred and a power imbalance [9]. Anarchy can't stop people from killing each other -- LSDs can. Anarchy can't enforce multiculturalism -- LSDs can.














I'd like to thank Pro very much for allowing this pair of rounds to be skipped (we pm'd). This was very generous of him/her.
Debate Round No. 3


As Con stated, we PM'd and agreed to skip this pair of rounds.

As such, I won't make any new arguments, rebut any points, or bring up new evidence.

However, as it's the last round for me, I wanted to give a short summary.


I've proven that Utilitarianism is the preferred value in this debate, because it maximizes potential value, which Con has not significantly rebutted.

I've proven that LSD best leads to economic growth and to assisting equality and thus positively impacts Utilitarianism.

I've proven that anarchy leads to crime and large-scale societal collapse and thus negatively impacts Utilitarianism.

I've proven that anarchy inevitable collapses into an unpredictable form of government, which makes any Con impacts short-term and potentially negative, as a terrible government may arise and do the opposite of Veganarchy, while LSDs are long-lived.

I've proven that deep ecology is flawed, and that humans are more valuable than animals.

I've proven that otherization is somewhat inherent and that veganarchy promotes otherization more than LSDs do.

I've proven that LSDs reduce war, and that anarchies reduce war only from lack of a healthy, large enough populace to fight them.

These are big impacts for LSD and against veganarchy in terms of Utilitarianism.

Vote Pro.


Again, thanks to all readers, to our judges, and to my opponent.


Good luck to Con! :D


I have come to the realization that even if I win this debate, I would not have time to finish the tournament. This is unfortunate, as this debate seemed amazingly fun. Unfortunately, I simply do not have the time to be able to participate. I am comforted by the fact that my place in the tournament will be replaced by someone so skillful. Good luck fuzzycatpotato!

We should repeat this debate sometime. I've got ideas X)
Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 7 years ago
Thanks for the debate kbub! =)
I would love to try it again, whenever you are free to do so.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 7 years ago
Posted by Nicoszon_the_Great 7 years ago
A system where people govern themselves with an emphasis on being able to govern themselves is preferable to people governing themselves

Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 7 years ago
Same. >:)
Posted by kbub 7 years ago
I'm missing the extra 24 hours ;)
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 7 years ago
If you wish, sure.
Posted by 16kadams 7 years ago
Can I vote with no points given but put an RFD at the end as to who I would have voted for
Posted by 16kadams 7 years ago

If you want a good source for this debate, read this:
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 7 years ago
I apologize if my opponent is a bit nebulous. I just don't know exactly what I'm arguing against, except generic anarchy, so I'm not entirely certain what to defend.

Regardless, it looks like this will be a fun topic.
Posted by FuzzyCatPotato 7 years ago
Heh. :P
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I'm taking the information as presented by Con in the last round as a concession--if I'm mistaken in doing so, I can complete my RFD for this debate (please just PM, me Con...or Pro, or whatevs).
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by orangemayhem 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.
Vote Placed by Mikal 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: concession
Vote Placed by Anonymous 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.

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