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


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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,747 times Debate No: 59759
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (2)




Accept only if you really are libertarian.

Scenario is following: I don't know what libertarianism is (I may check up about it during the debate); My opponent is libertarian, and he is trying to convice me to become one too. I will be trying to refute my opponent's arguments, furthermore, I may try to convice my opponent that he should not be libertarian.

Voting: If neither debater surrenders, debate will remain tied (no one will vote).


The most fair criteria for governance is assuming the moral validity of the non-aggression principle (NAP). It states that aggression against one's person or property is inherently immoral. As such, the only legitimate authority we have over one another is to ensure the enforcement of the NAP. This task can be accomplished through the state (government). However, abuses of government authority may result in subsequent tyranny that violates the NAP in itself, and subjects the population to things like tyranny of the majority (democracy) or even total authoritarian control (communism, fascism, etc.).

The power and role of the state must be kept to a minimum as libertarianism suggests. This principle protects people's freedom and avoids institutionalized tyranny created by systems of oppressive government, that can ultimately allow those in power to abuse their authority to harm and/or control the populace. There are many reasons Con should become a Libertarian.

Libertarianism protects people's individual freedom. Everyone is different and values are subjective. Libertarianism does not allow a group or individual to impose their beliefs or uphold them over another's freedom to have and express their own beliefs. The NAP is the criteria: if something does not violate another's physical person or property, it is fair game and none of anyone else's legal concern.

Libertarianism is fair. It does not rely on theft (taxes) but voluntary trade. You get what you pay for or what pepole are willing to give you on their own terms.

While it's true that libertarianism (capitalist economics) embraces hierarchy, the reality is that people are not equal. Everyone has different knowledge, strengths, experience, skills and personality traits that make them better or worse equipped to do certain things. Furthermore the value of our individual skills is not equal and are determined by things like supply and demand. As such, to embrace hierarchy is completely fair as it does not force everyone to accept undeserved mediocrity. It allows those who excel in certain areas to flourish and be rewarded for their choices and work ethic among other variables. Similarly, some people just have bad luck. That's unfortunate, but punishing everyone on the behalf of another's bad luck is definitely unfair.

Libertarian economics reward productivity and punish inefficiency, as they support total accountability to the individual enterprise without relying on bail outs for mistakes or corrupt practices. This suggests that libertarian economics will help facilitate a productive and progressive economy. Culture thrives in rich societies where people are not distracted by worry of basic survival. The arts and certainly the sciences largely depend on successful capitalist enterprise.

Libertarianism minimizes corruption. By minimizing the power and authority of those in power (government), there is more transparency and less opportunity for foul play.

So, why NOT libertarinism?
Debate Round No. 1


Problem with NAP: If I punch someone, I did a harm to him. If I spill my drink on someone, I did a harm to him. If open factory near his house that pollutes air, I did a harm to him. If I drive a car that pollutes air near his house, I did a harm to him. How do we agree upon where to draw the line? Note that people care about different things with different intensity.

Is my teacher suggesting that we should abandon democracy? What is alternative?

What makes my teacher think that pure capitalism will increasingly(with time) violate individual's freedom when individual who is poor will need to obey in order not to get fired? - For example, I made complete dominion over my dogs just by feeding them only when they complete tasks.

drought principle - Sometimes big corporations that sell stuff make their products, in some location, so cheap to the point where they are making deficit. Smaller corporations that sell same stuff go bankrupt faster, and as soon as they are, the big corporation makes prices go up to the point far above they were in the first place.

Eventually, just by drought principle, big corporations would eat up smaller ones.

Advertising problem - better advertised products would beat products with better quality. "Would" is not even the right word. This is already happening, only in pure capitalism it would be to much greater extent.
For example coca-cola and hamburgers are poison. And yet people worldwide consume it, only because it is well advertised.

Quality of products would increasingly(with time) drop.

Healthcare - Poor would not be able to get healthcare.
People can never have too much money in pure capitalism. It is much more profitable to give additional money to workers with good performance, in order to stimulate them to work even better, than to donate to some random beggar.


Aggression is defined as any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner. They are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self determination and the principle of self ownership. You draw the line against aggression as per the definition. If Con disagrees with this, he must explain why aggression ought to be allowed.

Democracy should be abandoned in favor of upholding the NAP. No action should be legal if it violates the NAP, and no action should be illegal unless it does. This includes government mandates through force. Some libertarians advocate abandonding the state all together. Democracy relies on tyranny of the majority and inhibits personal autonomy and individual rights.

Capitalism means people are free to work where they choose for a price they choose. That is freedom. It doesn't mean you will be equal to your boss; it means you are free to quit if you don't like your boss. Forcing anyone to do anything through the authority of the state is the opposite of freedom.

Con advocates inhibiting liberty to give small businesses a better chance for success. This is not good for the market or freedom. If it's true that bigger companies always prevail, then big companies would never go out of business (which they do all the time) or that new companies would never emerge and become big themselves (which they do all the time).

People are responsible for their own informed choices. Just because I am exposed to more Coke ads than small Cola company ads doesn't mean that I have to buy Coke. Even so, why shouldn't Coke be able to advertise more if they have the funds? Why does Con want to penalize Coke for their success and inhibit free trade? Maybe Coke sells more than their competitors because they have a superior, more in demand product. Coke should be able to buy all the ad space they can and not be penalized for doing better business than others.

Health care (nor any other professional service) is not a right. It is not something that you are inherently entitled to. If any professional provides you with a service, she has the right to charge you anything they want. If you cannot pay, you cannot force them to provide the service to you. That would essentially make them slaves.

Many medical professionals and agencies would likely be established for the poor in a libertarian society. Charities and pro bono work would help. Supply and demand supports the notion that insurance agencies and the health care industry would adjust rates to provide more care and maximize their own profits. Con hasn't proven that people are either entitled to health care, or that the poor would inevitably have no acces to care in a capitalist society. So far he only has a crony capitalist society (what we have now) to draw examples from where state regulations manipulate the market.
Debate Round No. 2


Driving a car near someone's house is physically affecting individual's person(health).
I don't see line anywhere in definition. I gave a concrete example in which my teacher should have said where the line is.

Well, for example, murdering all pigeons of the planet is not violating NAP at all. But I like pigeons, I want to protect them.

My opponent has not answered what is alternative to democracy. It is possible not to put any NAP related laws at all, but somebody has to regulate country's money. And what about laws like laws about owning intellectual property (songs, books), is counterfeit allowed in my opponent's proposed state?

Lets address the idea of abandoning the state all together. People oriniginally entered a government (at least in John Locke's mind) in order to have police - to punish criminals, and army - to protect them from outsiders. If there was no police, no one would be able to prevent strong stealing from the week. If there is no military, other countries would easily take away(steal) anything they like, or expand their territory, and there is no way group of civilians can stop the army.

Yes, people would CHOSE to obey, because their other option would be to die. That is even worse than having a choice to obey or go to prison.
Why my teacher considers forcing trough authority of state to be worse then forcing trough authority of owning all resources?

I am pointing out that by accumulation of power in big companies, power of their owners would rise all the way to the totalitarian state. Point of helping smaller companies is maintaining the balance of power.

Because, Coca Cola is poison. My teacher said "informed choices". Who would inform them, if all media is private and doctors profit from having more sick people?

Concept "inherently entitled" is meaningless, based on fallacy.
I think in USA people do not have a right to healthcare, but we in Serbia do have right to healthcare guaranteed by our constitution.

Forcing to provide a service would not make anyone slave. People still own themselves, even when they do not own (in capitalistic sense) their property.

In my last statement of Round 2, I explained why charity will not work.

If poor have no money, they can not afford the healthcare in capitalist society.


Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Since my teacher has forefeited, I can only pass this round.


Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Osiris_Rosenthorne 7 years ago
Ah, I suppose cars are going to outlawed then, after all, they violate the non aggression principle. Oh well, I guess I can walk, except I can't because my neighbour won't let me through his land, and after all, property rights are absolute. But hey, at least I'm free to do what I want over here.
Posted by Cold-Mind 7 years ago
I rephrased because you did not propery answered my questions...
Nevermind, write Round 4 in comments.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
I literally posted my argument 5 seconds too late. It'a a shame too since Con's arguments are TERRIBLE. He's literally ignoring my answers and rephrasing the same questions. Ah well.
Posted by Cold-Mind 7 years ago
@Chimera Both can do.
@ Daltonian Convincing me.
@ Danielle Round 1.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Do I start the debate in R1 or do you start it in R2?
Posted by Daltonian 7 years ago
Is the sole condition of victory being able to convince you that libertarianism is good, or the voters?
Posted by Chimera 7 years ago
Do you mean libertarian in the capitalist sense or in the socialist sense?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Vexorator 7 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit.
Vote Placed by GodChoosesLife 7 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.

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