Instigator / Pro
1773
rating
486
debates
69.44%
won
Topic

RM vs Athias: RM picks topic, Athias picks side.

Status
Debating

Waiting for the contender's fourth argument.

The round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
11,000
Contender / Con
1581
rating
16
debates
62.5%
won
Description
~ 183 / 5,000

If Athias chooses to open in Round 1, Athias must give up the Round 4 part to make us both have had 3 Rounds of debating.

Round 1, RM offers the topic, Round 1 Athias picks the side.

Round 1
Pro
Topic: Anarchy (of capitalistic/darwinistic variety) is, on balance, less hypocritical than right-wing Libertarianism.
Con
I'm Pro, and RationalMadman is Con.
Round 2
Pro
Hypocrisy as Con sees is

a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel
situation in which someone pretends to believe something that they do not really believe, or that is the opposite of what they do or say at another time

Of course since we discuss political system and not 'person' or 'people' we mean both advocates and pracitioners as well as the system itself.

As Con sees it, to even hold together a society in a capitalistic manner that meritocratically rewards people is futile to do in an anarchic manner and only can be successfully done under either a Libertarian regime or right-wing Capitalistic one (I am playing devil's advocate, I am left-wing IRL).

==

The reward system being in place.

You have a dollar. What keeps that dollar yours?

A police force and system that is held under legal scrutiny such that people can't randomly print fiat money out of nowhere without it reducing the currency's value. Why do the cops matter? Who stops your or punishes those that cause your finances harm that breaks the rules of the game?

Without rules, a rewards system cannot run. Can you imagine a grading system in a school where cheating and stealing other's marks by extortion were allowed? That is how hypocritical and ridiculous anarcho-capitalism would be if it stayed as that.

Except it never does stay as that, clearly people realise the hypocrisy and either it becomes a rule-established Libertarian state in its next transition or it at the very least shifts to a stage where people are more openly tribalistic and don't care as much for the meritocracy. In the end to be loyal to primal urges to spread one's DNA and keep one's family fed and happy, nepotism thwarts meritocracy in anarcho-capitalism because it is the way to keep your 'tribe' thriving and such.

It is actually self-defeating at its very core. If you try to be a lone meritocratically rewarded individual, you can't even hire muscle because the muscle can rape your family, break your neck and nothing holds them accountable as there's no law and order.

The entire system is broken at its very core, the fairness of the capitalism let alone darwinism is functionally moot as people will just form tribes they trust and ignore the principles on which Capitalism is meant to maintain over generations.

==

The need for law and order ends up with a more conservative culture than Libertarian offers, reducing variation for Darwinism.

As homophobes, misogynysts, misandrists and all sorts of either original abuser or vigilante anti-abuser set out on their various missions, anarchy that has capitalism and darwinism at its roots cannot maintain itself as anarchy.

In anarchy one should be as free as possible, without retraint. Yet one ends up genuinely freer under Libertarianism.

Let me explain why this is important.

If you are a gay drag queen who has HIV, a few years left and dedicate that to a business, Libertarianism not only keeps your doctor and such obligated to accurately and privately tell you how much time you probably have left and keeps all those who'd drag your business down and verbally/emotionally harm you limited to only legal means of doing so.

In anarcho-capitalism, tyranny can instantaneously form meaning the entire thing is self-refuting to begin with. Doctor-patient confidentiality can't even exist in anarchy without a law about it being enforced. Then comes the issue of enforcing anything to prevent means of hate crime.

==

The integrity of anything in anarchy is lost.

Your grades can't be darwinistic if all it takes is forgery.

Your income can't be darwinistic if not only forgery can get it but at every level of any measurement in that 'society' people can take things by extortion, blackmail, theft, fraud or hell, just murder off the competition.

It cannot maintain itself.
Con
I'd like to thank RationalMadman for instigating this debate. I would also like to remind my opponent as well as the audience that the resolution of this debate is to settle the dispute of what follows:  "Anarchy (of capitalistic/darwinistic variety) is, on balance, less hypocritical than right-wing Libertarianism."

In order to reach our resolution, we must first provide several descriptions:

behaving in a way that does not meet the moral standards or match the opinions that you claim to have
I'd also like to modify this definition in order to expand its scope which includes for both systems of thought and persons

[seeking ends] in a way that does not meet the moral standards or match the opinions that [it or one claims] to have
If my opponent takes issue with this modification, then he can address it in rebuttals.

any discrepancy between what a political party claims and the practices the party is trying to hide.
Anarchism (Taken from Oxford Languages; Google Search):
a political theory advocating the abolition of hierarchical government, and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.
political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value. It may be understood as a form of liberalism, the political philosophy associated with the English philosophers John Locke and John Stuart Mill, the Scottish economist Adam Smith, and the American statesman Thomas Jefferson. Liberalism seeks to define and justify the legitimate powers of government in terms of certain natural or God-given individual rights. These rights include the rights to life, liberty, private property, freedom of speech and association, freedom of worship, government by consent, equality under the law, and moral autonomy (the ability to pursue one’s own conception of happiness, or the “good life”). The purpose of government, according to liberals, is to protect these and other individual rights, and in general liberals have contended that government power should be limited to that which is necessary to accomplish this task. Libertarians are classical liberals who strongly emphasize the individual right to liberty. They contend that the scope and powers of government should be constrained so as to allow each individual as much freedom of action as is consistent with a like freedom for everyone else. Thus, they believe that individuals should be free to behave and to dispose of their property as they see fit, provided that their actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others.
My opponent made sure to qualify both Anarchy and Libertarianism, so let's explore some descriptions which inform the distinction the qualifications create:

Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy” or “market anarchism” or “free market anarchism”) is a libertarian and individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market. Economist Murray Rothbard is credited with coining the term. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.

Anarcho-capitalists argue for a society based on the voluntary trade of private property and services (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity. However, they also recognize charity and communal arrangements as part of the same voluntary ethic. Though anarcho-capitalists are known for asserting a right to private (individualized or joint non-public) property, some propose that non-state public or community property can also exist in an anarcho-capitalist society. For them, what is important is that it is acquired and transferred without help or hindrance from the compulsory state. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just, and/or most economically-beneficial, way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.

Anarcho-capitalists see free-market capitalism as the basis for a free and prosperous society.
Right-libertarianism, also known as libertarian capitalism or right-wing libertarianism, is a libertarian political philosophy that supports capitalist property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property. The term right-libertarianism is used to distinguish this class of views on the nature of property and capital from left-libertarianism, a type of libertarianism that combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources. In contrast to socialist libertarianism,  right-libertarianism supports free-market capitalism. Like most forms of libertarianism, it supports civil liberties, especially natural law, negative rights, the non-aggression principle, and a major reversal of the modern welfare state.
minarchism (countable and uncountable, plural minarchisms)
  1. Belief in the desirability and practicality of minimum government.
A state is a centralized political organization that imposes and enforces rules over a population within a territory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Key Similarities and Differences:

As the descriptions above delineate, both Anarchy or Anarcho-Capitalism, and Right-Wing Libertarianism espouse individual sovereignty, property rights, free-market capitalism, and a position against aggression. So where do these philosophies differ? The aforementioned differ particularly in their stance on government. Right-Wing Libertarians espouse a minimal government (minarchy) that dispenses and protects basic public necessities like courts, police, military, and the protection of property and contractual rights, funded by indiscriminate taxes. Anarchists or Anarcho-Capitalists argue, on the other hand, that the State (centralized government) should be abolished, and public necessities like courts, police, and military can be handled and regulated by the free-market. So then, could a simple disagreement over the role of government create a schism between anarchists/anarcho-capitalists and right-wing libertarians/minarchists?

Why Is Anarchy/Anarcho-Capitalism Less hypocritical than Right-Wing Libertarianism?

Let's first start with the Non-Aggression Principle. The non-aggression principle is the principle condemnation of instigating aggressive force (force that is not used in defense of oneself, other, or property) toward an individual or his/her property. Given the nature of the State, and its capacity to compel by amassing an army of both military combatants and police officers, does the discretion to apply deadly force in what these officers perceive as a threat, which isn't limited to perceived threats to themselves or others, not a violation of the non-aggression principle?

Particularized Threat (10 points): Policies received 0 or 10 points for the particularized threat element of necessity. A policy satisfied this principle if it required a specific heightened risk or threat to allow use of lethal force. All but one of the 20 cities satisfied particularized threat, only allowing use of lethal force in response to a threat of death or serious bodily harm or injury—specific, heightened risks. Indianapolis failed to satisfy this element because the policy allows the use of deadly force to prevent the commission of a forcible felony, without limiting or specifying the relevant felonies or the kind of force or threat of force involved in the commission of the felony.83 Fort Worth, for example, established that use of lethal force was authorized “only when it is necessary for officers to protect themselves or others from an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury” (emphasis added).84
I cited this study to present empirical evidence as to consequences of States extending the application of deadly force to their officers, and making it subject to their discretion. Since the mere act of non-compliance is seen as a tort, couldn't every action by an individual which does not comply with the State be seen as a perceivable threat which could be met with a response codified with the prospect of death, thus undermining the non-aggression principle?

Second, Right-Wing Libertarians purport to espouse Free-Market Capitalism and its ideals, so why does the philosophy not espouse the same ideals as it concerns the distribution of tort liability, justice, and rule of law using the free market? Why does Right-Wing Libertarianism in glorious contradiction espouse the presence of an allegedly minimalist "monopoly" as it concerns the infraction of rights, property or contractual, but support the free-market when it concerns economics? If the free-market is the most efficient and ideal distributor of goods as it concerns an individual's or society's economic concerns, why would the free-market not be the optimal or preferable option as it concerns the services the government alleges it provides?

I argue that with respect to both the non-aggression principle and free-market Capitalism, Right-Wing Libertarianism is more hypocritical than anarchy/anarcho-capitalism which does not bear these contradictory principles.
Round 3
Pro
As the descriptions above delineate, both Anarchy or Anarcho-Capitalism, and Right-Wing Libertarianism espouse individual sovereignty, property rights, free-market capitalism, and a position against aggression.
None of these can work under anarcho-capitalism, literally none.

Sovereignty is supposed to be this:
variants or less commonly sovranty
pluralsovereignties also sovranties
1
a
supreme power especially over a body politic
b
freedom from external control AUTONOMY
c
controlling influence
2
one that is sovereign

You cannot have supreme power of any kind in anarchy or it stops being anarchy, the more controlling influence that is even possible, the less it achieves its goal.

You cannot have freedom from external control as everybody is completely free to hurt you, bully you, rob you and devalue the currency even. There are infinitely available means of external control to ruin your sovereignty. You cannot even sleep at night without hoping your security guard doesn't slit your throat and that's best-case scenario.

Property rights are non-existent in anarchy. They are inforced impulsively as the random thugs guarding the property see fit. There are no laws and nothing keeping the rights in tact.

What are property rights?
What Are Property Rights?
Property rights define the theoretical and legal ownership of resources and how they can be used. These resources can be both tangible or intangible and can be owned by individuals, businesses, and governments.

In anarcho-capitalism, everyone is 'free' to abuse everyone. They can deface your property, rob it, kill you and 'own' it as they see fit. The entire concept is defunct.

What about free-market capitalism?
The term free market is sometimes used in place of laissez-faire capitalism. Most people are generally referring an economy with open competition and only private transactions among buyers and sellers when they talk about the free market. However, a more apt definition also includes economic activity wherein coercive central authorities have no control.

How are you going to be laissez-faire in anarchy? In face how can you be free from aggression in anarchy whatsoever?

Yet there is a certain amount of ambiguity among anarchists about freedom. There are topics on which some — many — anarchists reject the pro-freedom, libertarian, position.
For example, concerning freedom of speech. Some anarchists have generalized from our attitude toward fascists (where we attempt to physically drive them off the streets and break up their meetings). These anarchists (and other leftists) have applied this to other groups which are non-fascist — conservatives for example — breaking up their meetings (such as assaulting the platform at Columbia University in New York City of the group which organized “Islamo-fascist Week”). Or anarchists are often against admitting Marxist-Leninists to anarchist gatherings or bookfairs — not only denying them literature tables (which may make sense at an anarchist bookfair) but questioning their right to attend. This is especially true toward the Spartacist League, a Trotskyist group which specializes in “political combat” through being obnoxious, or the Revolutionary Communist Party, a Maoist group which would shoot us if it took power. This denial of free speech has been justified by some with a revival of the 1960s theory of Herbert Marcuse of “repressive tolerance.”

Capitalist politicians jabber about freedom, liberty, democracy, and more freedom. Revolutionary anarchists point out that freedom under capitalism is limited and hypocritical. Mostly the bourgeois (capitalist) politicians mean the freedom to get rich, including capitalists’ “freedom” not to be bothered by unions or by pesky anti-discrimination laws or environmental regulations. Capitalists want the “liberty” to not promote African-Americans or women at work or to rent out apartments without having to modify them for the physically disabled. This is the “freedom” to oppress others (to deny others their freedom). Needless to say, what I am for is the freedom of the oppressed to be free of their oppression!

Anarchy at its core loathes capitalism. After all, we cannot be free and without tyranny if the rich are free to hire who they want and betray everyone as they see fit. Furthermore, the rich themselves are not as rich as they think in anarcho-capitalism.

Let's realise the problem.

The wielding of force is not a business function. In fact, force is outside the realm of economics. Economics concerns production and trade, not destruction and seizure.
Ask yourself what it means to have a "competition" in governmental services. It's a "competition" in wielding force, a "competition" in subjugating others, a "competition" in making people obey commands. That's not "competition," it's violent conflict. On a large scale, it's war.

The shootout at the O.K. Corral was not a case of "competition." Actual competition is a peaceful rivalry to gain dollars--dollars paid voluntarily in uncoerced trade.

Governments are necessary--because we need to be secure from force initiated by criminals, terrorists, and foreign invaders.

You will not have sovereignty beyond what your thugs decide they want to defend and do in the moment, in anarcho-capitalism. You cannot even have anarcho-capitalism because it is defunct from the get-go.

Let's remember what Con quotes:
In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.
(I don't think the link works as such or it certainly leads to cloudflare error for now)

From the same URL domain we get this:
There is a huge literature dealing with the most frequent and obvious objections — e.g., Wouldn’t society descend into violent strife as armed bands fought for turf? How would disputes be resolved if my neighbor chose one arbitrator and I chose another? A short essay can’t answer all objections, so I refer you to this annotated bibliography of anarcho-capitalism assembled by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

There’s a joke that’s been going around over the past few years: what’s the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist? Answer: six months. If you value principle, consistency, and justice, and oppose violence, parasitism, and monopoly, it may not take you even that long. Start reading, and see where these ideas take you.

I don't know about 'six months' and I understand this author was pro-AnCap but I must wonder what the person really meant by the ending. See, over time, in minarchism (which is extremely aligned with Libertarianism, if not two parts of the same political ideology) you get basic rights and rules defended. You can be as ruthless, competitive and free to maneuvre within the system as long as you obey those rules. In Anarcho-Capitalism the rules are made up as they go along and that's the fundamental flaw if you ever want sovereignty and freedom from aggression, you basically own only what you can violently defend.

In other words, as Anarcho-Capitalism progresses every single problem that the author rhetorically asks and says has been answered by literature, is extremely relevant. If you go ahead and read that 'bibliography' it doesn't really answer anything.

That website is simply biased in favour of Anarcho-Capitalism, it defined it in a way that makes it sound cosy enough and even then had to admit it is open to violence and thuggery disrupting the entire system of capitalism being fair and in-tact.

Pro states four things:
    • sovereignty
    • property rights
    • free-market capitalism
    • position against aggression
    These are not tenable to be held in any long-term manner within anarchy of any kind whether it label itself capitalist or not. They require laws and authorities with agreed upon core laws that keep them in tact.

    Con
    Rebuttals:

    As Con sees it, to even hold together a society in a capitalistic manner that meritocratically rewards people is futile to do in an anarchic manner and only can be successfully done under either a Libertarian regime or right-wing Capitalistic one...
    I remind my opponent that our dispute focuses on a comparative analysis between his proposed modification of anarchy--i.e. Capitalistic or Darwinian--and Right-Wing Libertarianism in the context of hypocrisy. I mention this because "Libertarianism" is a blanket term that refers to any school of thought which seeks to actualize the maximization of individual freedom. Juxtaposing Libertarianism in an "either, or" with anarchy is like juxtaposing a plain orange and a clementine.

    (1) You have a dollar. What keeps that dollar yours?

     A police force and system that is held under legal scrutiny such that people can't randomly print fiat money out of nowhere without it reducing the currency's value. (2) Why do the cops matter? Who stops your or punishes those that cause your finances harm that breaks the rules of the game?

    (3) Without rules, a rewards system cannot run. Can you imagine a grading system in a school where cheating and stealing other's marks by extortion were allowed? That is how hypocritical and ridiculous anarcho-capitalism would be if it stayed as that.

    (4) Except it never does stay as that, clearly people realise the hypocrisy and either it becomes a rule-established Libertarian state in its next transition or it at the very least shifts to a stage where people are more openly tribalistic and don't care as much for the meritocracy. In the end to be loyal to primal urges to spread one's DNA and keep one's family fed and happy, nepotism thwarts meritocracy in anarcho-capitalism because it is the way to keep your 'tribe' thriving and such.

    (5) It is actually self-defeating at its very core. If you try to be a lone meritocratically rewarded individual, you can't even hire muscle because the muscle can rape your family, break your neck and nothing holds them accountable as there's no law and order.

    (6) The entire system is broken at its very core, the fairness of the capitalism let alone darwinism is functionally moot as people will just form tribes they trust and ignore the principles on which Capitalism is meant to maintain over generations.

    1. Who keeps that dollar mine? My possession of it does. In an anarcho-capitalist society, currency would be distributed by private, individually competing banks. The prevalence of each of their currencies would be contingent on their capacity to provide their services efficiently, and the cultivation of their respective market reputations. They would, for example, find it difficult to conscript their market-base into financing a $700 Billion Bailout--which by the way involved "randomly printing fiat money out of nowhere"--by means of a federal ordinance. You speculate that fiat money would printed out of nowhere, and thus resulting in the devaluation of the national currency, despite the fact that the U.S. government, like many governments, for example does in fact print fiat out of nowhere:

    Total - Federal Reserve Bank-Held Gold (Summary)
    13,452,810.545 (Fine Troy Ounces)
    $568,007,257.40 (Book Value)
     
    Total - U.S. Government Gold Reserve (Summary)
    261,498,926.241 (Fine Troy Ounces)
    $11,041,059,957.90 (Book Value)
    The FY 2021 print order of 7.6 to 9.6 billion notes is an increase of 1.7 to 3.8 billion notes, or 30.6 to 65.9 percent, from the final FY 2020 order.3
    Currency in circulation, a direct measure of demand for Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs), increased by 5.1 billion notes or $226.3 billion dollars between June 2019 and June 2020.
    And it plans to print more:

    The Board of Governors, as the issuing authority for Federal Reserve notes, approved and submitted its fiscal year (FY) 2023 print order to the U.S. Department of Treasury, Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), on August 9, 2022.1 The FY 2023 print order contains a range of 4.5 billion to 8.6 billion notes, valued at $166.5 billion to $190.5 billion.

    I propose however that my opponent, RationalMadman, is arguing a strawman. He is, whether he's playing devil's advocate or not, a proxy for Right-Wing Libertarian thought. And he has not substantiated how Federal Regulation of Currency is consistent with Right Wing Libertarian and/or minarchist  reasoning. I suppose my opponent may be presuming that in their support--Right-Wing Libertarians that is--for at least minimum government, that the federal regulation of currency is included within that scope. But this has not been established. To my knowledge, right-wing Libertarians advocate only for the State to function in the adjudication of conflict, and regulate the provisions of public goods like education, police, firefighting, and military defense. Not to mention, "the protection of property rights."

    I will offer this nugget for thought: support for government's regulation of currency while speculating and criticizing the alleged prospect that in anarcho-capitalism, currency would be printed out of no where and devalued is hypocritical as my references above clearly demonstrate.

    2. Police or security, like any other good or service, can be privatized. Precincts wouldn't be subdivisions part of one giant organization that is ACCOUNTABLE ONLY TO ITSELF, but private individual organizations competing for the favor of its consumers.

    3. Non sequitur. I demand that my opponent establishes how ANARCHO-CAPITALISM = NO RULES despite my submitted descriptions delineating no such thing. If my opponent intends to dispute this, then let him provide his own counterfactual.

    4. If human beings are prone to their "primal urges" to spread DNA and feed their family, and this subsequently results in non-meritocratic tribalistic dysfunction--and it should be noted that I'm not attempting to validate my opponent's pretext, only extending it to logical conclusion to demonstrate its absurdity--then how is government regulation a remedy? Are the members of government not just as prone to their primal urges? If your evolutionary psychological platitude incorporates every single human being then why does concentrating authority to just a few, and calling them "government" provide an exception? This absurd conclusion you've proposed renders ALL social interaction INESCAPABLE from non-meritocratic tribalism.

    5. Non-sequitur. Anarchism or Anarcho-capitalism is not the absence of law-and-order as my descriptions clearly state. I understand you could not have anticipated my description in the first and/or second rounds, but you could have addressed it in the third, should you have had a dispute. And you don't. Hence this ex-post-facto rebuttal.

    6. I still don't understand how this contradicts the principles of Capitalism--particularly free market capitalism. If a person decides to employ or acquire resources for just family members, and this results in an efficient distribution, then what's the problem? If it results in an inefficient distribution, then that's the cross they bear, correct? Please elaborate on your notion of "fairness" before closing arguments.

     Let me explain why this is important.

    If you are a gay drag queen who has HIV, a few years left and dedicate that to a business, Libertarianism not only keeps your doctor and such obligated to accurately and privately tell you how much time you probably have left and keeps all those who'd drag your business down and verbally/emotionally harm you limited to only legal means of doing so.
    A market-based reputation system would also hold one's doctor responsible for accurately and privately releasing information on one's mortality. All you've suggested here is how Right-Wing Libertarians could be against free speech (which suggests hypocrisy.) What do you mean by legal means of verbal/emotional harm? And how is this not a contradiction of the Right-Wing Libertarian adherence to civil liberties, natural law, negative rights, and the non-aggression principle? What is the penalty for an "illegal" verbal/emotional expression which evokes an undesirable emotional response?

    You cannot have supreme power of any kind in anarchy or it stops being anarchy, the more controlling influence that is even possible, the less it achieves its goal.
    I presume that you've either misinterpreted or are attempting lexical manipulation. Whichever it is, some clarification is in order. Individual sovereignty is synonymous with Self-Ownership. So we can dismiss your response as a valid contention since it does not respond to the applied description of individual sovereignty.

    You cannot have freedom from external control as everybody is completely free to hurt you, bully you, rob you
    And one is free to defend oneself or employ security to that effect. What is your point?

    and devalue the currency even.
    You have not substantiated the hypocrisy in this as I've demonstrated above, much less substantiated its inevitable occurrence in anarcho-capitalism with which to begin.

    There are infinitely available means of external control to ruin your sovereignty.
    So you did know how I was applying the term? Lexical manipulation it is.

    You cannot even sleep at night without hoping your security guard doesn't slit your throat and that's best-case scenario.
    Please provide more than bald assertions.

    Property rights are non-existent in anarchy. They are inforced impulsively as the random thugs guarding the property see fit. There are no laws and nothing keeping the rights in tact.
    Strawman. Since this was a round three response, if you had a dispute with my submitted descriptions, you could've provided a counterfactual or counterargument.

    Anarchy at its core loathes capitalism. After all, we cannot be free and without tyranny if the rich are free to hire who they want and betray everyone as they see fit.
    Anarchy at its core doesn't "loathe" Capitalism, since the regulation and distribution of goods and services by private individuals is the epitome of voluntary cooperation. Your statement mere speculates a lack of ethics among "the rich" in particular in the absence of a coercive agent.

    Wouldn’t society descend into violent strife as armed bands fought for turf? How would disputes be resolved if my neighbor chose one arbitrator and I chose another? A short essay can’t answer all objections, so I refer you to this annotated bibliography of anarcho-capitalism assembled by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
    Please cite this directly; the annotation of listed works actually addresses the question. That's the point.

    I'm running out of characters, so I'll address the rest in the next round before closing arguments.



    Round 4
    Pro
    Who keeps that dollar mine? My possession of it does. In an anarcho-capitalist society, currency would be distributed by private, individually competing banks. 
    But with robberies allowed, with killing any member of the bank and keeping their money allowed if nobody is close to them to notice and stand up for them etc, the system falls apart.

    You link to a lot of evidence that at times the federal government has printed money, they had to let the other countries know and the USD currency was reduced in value for it. Nobody would trade ethically and last in anarcho-capitalism. Monopolies would naturally form by literally killing off competition if need be. You could have no rules beyond what some thugs would enforce and their 'loyalty' would be based on either chaotic impulse or money.

    Without law holding the system in place, these banks would not be competing based on who offers the best model for citizens to trade with. Instead it would be based on who could beat the competition, perhaps with weapons.

    The banks could spread disinformation about each other and if found out no penalty would come as long as they had enough weapons and thugs defending them. People could stop doing business with them but they could then refuse to give out anyone's money. The entire system falls apart because of greed and lack of rules.

    ==

    (2) Why do the cops matter? Who stops your or punishes those that cause your finances harm that breaks the rules of the game?
    Police or security, like any other good or service, can be privatized. Precincts wouldn't be subdivisions part of one giant organization that is ACCOUNTABLE ONLY TO ITSELF, but private individual organizations competing for the favor of its consumers.
    The giant organisation you refer to is accountable to officials that are elected or appointed by the elected. Do you know how the system works? That depends on the country so I cannot specify as such. In all Libertarian scenarios the government is elected and answerable to by the public ultimately.

    Cops themselves are able to (eventually, hopefully) be exposed if breaking the law and reprimanded. In Anarcho-capitalism even if there is corruption in Libertarianism, there is more in it. There is no barrier to corruption in anarcho-capitalism, not one tiny barrier or obstacle at all.

    You cannot privatise the police, only security. The police serve the people of the country and enforce the laws agreed upon, especially in Libertarianism. Security has only 1 objective, namely to keep the employer safe.

    ==
    Without rules, a rewards system cannot run. Can you imagine a grading system in a school where cheating and stealing other's marks by extortion were allowed? That is how hypocritical and ridiculous anarcho-capitalism would be if it stayed as that.
    Non sequitur. I demand that my opponent establishes how ANARCHO-CAPITALISM = NO RULES despite my submitted descriptions delineating no such thing. If my opponent intends to dispute this, then let him provide his own counterfactual.
    No, I have made it very clear. In Anarcho-capitalism you are only able to have rules based on the whims of the currently wealthy and they can they break rules and brutally snowball any advantage with a combination of nepotism and selective meritocracy in exchange for the competent keeping their mouth shut about what's done behind closed doors and royalty bloodlines happen and dynasties with back-and-forth marriages between families would keep it an oligarchy of sorts but this assumes no uprising happens and if it does it would likely seek a Libertarian outcome.

    There are no rules in anarcho-capitalism, it doesn't matter if you say the people can make rules, they can't enforce them remotely like laws and it's all only as good as the private thugs serving employers or godfathers see fit to achieve.

    ==

     If human beings are prone to their "primal urges" to spread DNA and feed their family, and this subsequently results in non-meritocratic tribalistic dysfunction--and it should be noted that I'm not attempting to validate my opponent's pretext, only extending it to logical conclusion to demonstrate its absurdity--then how is government regulation a remedy? Are the members of government not just as prone to their primal urges? If your evolutionary psychological platitude incorporates every single human being then why does concentrating authority to just a few, and calling them "government" provide an exception? This absurd conclusion you've proposed renders ALL social interaction INESCAPABLE from non-meritocratic tribalism.
    The way it is possible is because the government is accountable to the people and its own opposition, for starters. So, when corrupt people occur in a Libertarian government, there are social and structural mechanics in place to take them down keeping the rules in tact. It's not a perpetual bloodbath and gangster environment.

    I also don't think anarcho-capitalism would solely function on nepotism, you'd selfishly want the best at your trade/industry/art/product/service in your employment and high ranking within it but there would definitely be nepotism going on too. It would also not be beyond anyone's range of plausible moves to kill off the equally good and superior that turn them down ('offer you can't refuse' vibes). Job offers would be entailed with death threats upon not hiring, it would be a 'gangster's paradise' so to speak, pure terror and tribal favouritism.

    Furthermore, even with meritocracy in place it is likely the powerful would encourage the competent to reproduce with their offspring and the competent if from a mediocre or lowly bloodline would certainly want to do so since the system has no place for true love, you need to function in an extremely survivalist manner.

    ==

    Non-sequitur. Anarchism or Anarcho-capitalism is not the absence of law-and-order as my descriptions clearly state. I understand you could not have anticipated my description in the first and/or second rounds, but you could have addressed it in the third, should you have had a dispute. And you don't. Hence this ex-post-facto rebuttal.
    Yes they are. They are exactly what you say they aren't.

    Your description never explains whatsoever how laws would arise because it cannot do that as that's not anarchy. 

    In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics.
    mises.org (Con's R1)

    This makes no sense in practise whatsoever. If only the richest and most powerful are entitled to enforce the 'rules' and adjudicate on people's guilt, obviously the entire system would be rigged in their favour. There would be no damn rules whatsoever, they'd have the most dangerous and all of it and then rob the people opposing them too.

    It is actually completely unfeasible and unsustainable because it instantly opens up tyranny which is the whole problem.

    In the SAME DESCRIPTION THIS IS SAID:

    Anarcho-capitalist libertarians believe that the only just, and/or most economically-beneficial, way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.
    (same source)

    How can this even be possible? You have legalised fraud, since there are no laws and if the private owners of law enforcement want that fraudster to get away with it, that's allowed. You allow aggression permanently in fact terrorism itself is allowed in Anarcho-capitalism:

    Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.
    (same source)

    You can *in theory* kill the very law enforcers legally but no doubt they'd have the much better thugs and weapons and would hurt you and your family if you dared raise arms against them. It would be pure gangster ethos.

    ==

     I still don't understand how this contradicts the principles of Capitalism--particularly free market capitalism. If a person decides to employ or acquire resources for just family members, and this results in an efficient distribution, then what's the problem? If it results in an inefficient distribution, then that's the cross they bear, correct? Please elaborate on your notion of "fairness" before closing arguments.
    You stated the very issue, there would be no efficient distribution for the society's freedom and wellbeing, it would be for the family's dominion or individual's. Since any individual alone is likely to be thwarted by one of the dynasties or cartels, it's much better to aim to be a group. Whether that group owns a singular monopoly or is a group of quasi-monopolies forming a cartel, it works the same way. Therefore, it becomes teams taking control and powerful rogues get eliminated bit by bit.

    So, what's true is no one singular tyrant is likely to take the reigns at least for the first generation. Instead a family or group of families would and then they'd either agree on laws and defeat the idea of anarchy or they'd be ruthless gangsters abusing the lack of laws in place.

    Fairness would be that everyone has to play by the same rules.
    Not published yet