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

Is Anarcho-Capitalism the best ideology?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Quotatron3000 has forfeited round #4.
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: 12/30/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 609 times Debate No: 98537
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Round 1- Acceptance
Round 2- Arguments
Round 3- Rebuttals
Round 4- Conclusions/Counter Rebuttals


I accept this debate!
Debate Round No. 1


Anarcho-Capitalism is an ideology that is most often met with bipartisan disgust, just like all forms of "government" that lack government. However, anarchocapitialism is beneficial to everything excluding the State. It is better for the consumer, it is better for the employer, and it is better for the worker. I will now lay out why for each.

The Consumer
When left alone, capitalism is forced to bring consumers the best products for the lowest prices. This is because of competition. When a business offers the same product for a lower price than another business, the other business must lower their prices or lose customers. Also, with no taxes, consumers would have much more money to spend.

The Employer
Without all the red tape of regulations that the state forces upon employers, they would be able to expand their business and produce much more. Many more people would try their hand at starting a business, and the economy would boom. Also, when there is no minimum wage or taxes, businesses will stay in the country. They will be able to employ more people, and violence would not be as high. In places like Detroit, where many jobs were sent to other countries, gang violence is everywhere. This would not be necessary if employers could easily employ these people so they don't have to survive off violence.

The Worker
Anarchocapitalism is the only way a worker is truly free. They can choose where, when, and even what to work for. A workers wage is decided by both parties, the employer and worker. It isn't slavery, it is both of their free will.

A common misconception about anarchy is that it means no rules. That is completely false. There is only one rule in anarchocapitalism: Don't be aggressive towards others (assaulting, stealing, raping, killing) and others will not be aggressive towards you. Basically, if you do something bad, and enough people think it is bad, then you will be brought to justice by them, however they see fit.

Corporations would never be able to become as powerful as they are in this stateless society. In fact, the state is the only thing keeping them so strong. The wealthiest people pay politicians to pass legislation that keeps competition down, such as the minimum wage (smaller businesses can't afford higher wages and go out of business) and business permits (keeps people from easily starting a business). If corporations had competition, they would have a much, much harder time becoming so powerful.


The concept of Anarcho-Capitalism has existed since time immemorial, along with it countless of examples of why it fails.

Many a system has existed without government regulation, when the concept of a human organised government, with a fully established currency, was at the back of the minds of fully fledged human beings.

With no oversights, traders sold goods of variable and dubious quality, of items that contained radioactive materials or, in the case of Coke Cola in it's early days, actual cocaine.

There was no concept of refunds, or lawsuits for negligence in earlier time periods, because the markets simply weren't regulated or controlled.

Lack of oversight resulted in the workhouses of Victorian England, where the poor would go, essentially to work until they died, or got ill. Children working would be a regular sight. Workers falling ill, having limbs crushed, or even being outright killed, were a result of a lack of regulation.

Indeed, these sparked social outcry, of demands for reform. If corporations had an open rampant market, they would return to the old ways: of inferior goods, of dangerous products, of terrible working conditions.

Even now, in the modern era of oversight, exploitation still occurs - albiet behind closed doors - like the LIBOR scandal. The difference is, deceptive market manipulations that harm everybody are dealt with if found out.

Businesses have proven that they thrive even with restrictions in-place, self-imposed, or otherwise. Cadburys afforded it's workers greater wages, for example, as well as health care, at a time when most employers would try to remove workers' pay for the slightest infraction.

The laws used by government regarding the economy are not there to stifle the just or the righteous - who will do the right thing by their workforce (or will openly defy immoral laws with the moral support of the populace) - but are there to ensure that those who would want to sell us, poisonious, addictive, harmful substances (some of which still plague us to this day), subpar, low quality goods, or try to tamper with the market maliciously, are unable to do so.
Debate Round No. 2


First off, I would like some examples of systems of that did not regulate the economy. I do not know any.

Those items sold are the fault of the consumer, who purchased the items from an untrustworthy source. One should always only buy from those they trust, even in a regulated economy. It is common sense.

Refunds should be the business's decision, as the consumer should not have bought the item if he wasn't willing to accept that his source could give him a faulty product. If the business decides it is in their best interest to give a refund so be it, but if you forced the refund, the only way to back that would be with punishment. Would it be moral to force someone to give your money back or die/go to prison just because you were stupid enough to buy something that you did not find out if it worked before you forked over the cash? I would say it would not be.

Workhouses of Victorian England only existed because the government had made a dependent poor class for 200 years, then took away their food all at once. They are, again, a result of the state. "Workers falling ill, having limbs crushed, or even being outright killed, were a result of a lack of regulation." That is false. A lack of compensation or prevention for these things were a result of a lack of regulation, but the actual illnesses and injuries were not. Also England was not a free market at the time, and as a result many people were very poor.

Those "old ways" would easily be countered with a boycott. If enough people find a business does something disgusting, they can stop purchasing from there, and convince others to do the same. The business will be forced to change or close.

Many businesses can still thrive, yes, but the vast majority of wealth goes only to corporations. In a free market, competition would take money away from these massive corporations, and allow wealth to be more equally distributed (not by the state, but by the market).


I take my opponent means well in his intention, but I believe that he fails to anticipate the true outcome of his advocated system.

He states that:
"capitalism is forced to bring consumers the best products for the lowest prices"

In one sense it's true, but only in the sense the lowest price comes at a cost: lower cost per item means cutbacks have to be made to ensure things are cheaper, and what is cheaper than unpaid child labour working 12 hour shifts daily in a cheaply made, poorly designed, unsafe factory, akin to the one that collapsed on the workers in Bangladesh?

Indeed, capitalism doesn't have to bring the 'best products', nor would it want to, because the greatest profit margin comes from producing the cheapest, lowest quality product, and selling it at an inflated rate.

For what would you do if you found out your product is defective? Who would you complain to? And if all the companies and corporations colluded to sell you poorly made goods, and fix their prices skyhigh (a thing only illegal with regulation), who would you raise complaint with?

And what if it was an item you couldn't be picky on? Such as your water supply? Your food? Your car?

He posits:

"with no taxes, consumers would have much more money to spend."

But from what wage if there is no minimum amount?:

"when there is no minimum wage"

One cannot make a saving on their wage if one is paid nothing like the child labourers in Africa.

"businesses will stay in the country"

Only by emulating the destructive practices of the countries they outsource to, such as China (known for it's heavy pollution and environmental destruction).

"They will be able to employ more people, and violence would not be as high."

As we've established, businesses have demonstrated they need not be so ruthless nor cut-throat, and yet still remain successful. Do they really need to outsource? Or are they only seeking to widen their profit margins? Where do those profits go to? The Virgin Islands? The Bahamas? Jersey?

"Anarchocapitalism is the only way a worker is truly free. They can choose where, when, and even what to work for."

Which is entirely moot if one's choice is between starvation or working for a company who actively exploits it's workers harshly.

One also further presumes that the individual in question is a bachelor, who does not need to support a family, and could simply 'quit' on a moments notice. One could retort 'don't have a family', but one would have then made the human race extinct in a single generation.

The ability for businesses to compete doesn't ensure a higher standard of choice. It just means a more ruthless method of recruiting. If companies aren't regulated, what's to stop them turning to slavery to fill their gap in labour?

And if one proposes slavery be disallowed, then one has to mandate a minimum wage of some sort (slavery is being forced to do unpaid work), which would then refute it as being a true Anarchocapitalism.

"A common misconception about anarchy is that it means no rules. That is completely false."

Unfortunately I am forced to cite an outside source, and if I might be as crass as to cite wikipedia on the topic of Anarcho-capitalism (which is what I presume is meant here rather than anarchy), it states that:

"Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property, and free markets."

And the definition of free markets is defined as:

"is that a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority."

The keyword being, of course, any. Which would mean no laws. But lets assume this is a variant of anarcho-capitalism where there are laws in a lawless system that opposes aggression, as mentioned here - stealing. What is the definition of stealing?

You'd say when I unlawfully take something from you. What if I took you money, but gave you a product that was basically empty, or broken? Is that stealing? Because by definition it would be a trade, and a trade cannot be regulated. But if it would be regulated, what if I stole your wage? Would this be regulated too?

This by definition isn't true anarcho-capitalism but a 'feature creep' form of regulated capitalism that slowly expands it's borders to encompass unjustifible actions (which is precisely what society have been achieving since time immemorial).

But say, who would enforce such laws? The companies that commit them? (Remember, a corporation can own a whole slew of different companies, which is called diverse investment). Perhaps each other? (Even if they secretly agree not to prosecute).

If no justice is seen to be done, society will not stand idle. Like the Labour riots in Britain, people will react - adversely. Laws serve a harmonious balance between two goals: social justice (in the form of ensuring worker rights, consumer rights and a quality product) and company privilege. And I do say privilege: to earn a profit, to make a company, it is a privilege - not a right. To eat, drink, to be treatly fairly, to freely speak, is a right.

Companies already have enough power as it is, and still commit abuses. They do not need any more.

"Corporations would never be able to become as powerful as they are in this stateless society."

And yet, how many of these corrupt corporations succeeded in times when governmental administration was minimal? JP Morgan, for example, was during the initial development of America, prior to any real government.

If governance makes corporations so strong, why do they have to hire lobbyists? Why do they have to bribe politicians? Why do they try to pass trade agreements that give them de facto rights to sue the government in a dispute?

In any true system, it would never remain anarcho-capitalist anyway, because a corporate monopoly would try to seize power and dictate the terms!

In one study regarding competition, which involved companies trading equally, it was found that finances naturally centralised into single, smaller amounts of companies. Or to put it short: 'it takes money to make money', and no small scale business could compete with a 'no holds barred' beat down from a corporation.

In the end, Anarcho-capitalism either becomes a feature creep regulated system, or a system that becomes dominated by singular monopolies who then implement de facto rules.
Debate Round No. 3


This argument is ridiculous. If everyone else is making terrible products, another business could make a quality product and sell it for a reasonably higher price. If people want better quality, they will buy from that place. In the case of the unsafe conditions, either a strike or boycott could force the business to be as society wants or they will go down.

That would only apply if the people were stupid enough to buy the terrible products, in which case that is all they deserve.

You would raise a complaint with the business. All businesses want to make money, so if you take your money elsewhere, there is a loss for them. And likely, others will do the same. It is in a business's best interest to keep their customers happy.

Those things are produced by so many people, I find it hard to believe that all of them would mistreat their customers.

That argument about minimum wage is completely invalidated by the fact that most jobs pay more than the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is the only thing stopping employers from paying dirt wages, why isn't everyone paid minimum wage?

Alright, I don't have time to respond to the rest, I apologize, but I am nearly out of time. I wish I could, perhaps some other time. I thank my opponent for this debate, and wish him luck on the voting stage.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 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.