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

Good debate. If you want to debate the subject of anarchy again, feel free to challenge me anytime.

3. I suppose.

A. Because losing the decision results in forfeit, which undermines voluntarism. There's no "equitable" participation if each individual cannot maintain the authority with which they entered. Majority decision simply means "mob rule"--one either joins the mob, or gets punished for not doing so.

I. It is coercion, even if it's masked under the pretext of "equitable community participation." The opportunity to participate mitigates nothing. Absence of coercive group measures does not result in chaos or a lack of social systems. The order simply stems from voluntary participation.

II. What about when a community votes 99-1 that murder should be legal? Or rape? Is the one dissenter creating a hierarchy then in his/her opting out? This is the reason ad populum arguments do not resolve moral disputes. And "democracy" is just one large ad populum argument.

B. No, it isn't. In any standard description of Anarchism, you'll almost always find some mention of voluntarism. The distinction between the State, and government especially in the context of a bourgeois strata is a left-wing modification, namely in anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism. It's not the other way around--i.e. standard descriptions of anarchism do not become "right-wing" because the aforementioned chose to modify the description to service their ideology.

I. I think I've reasoned adequately that direct democracy solves nothing of a moral nature. Furthermore, your allegation of "right-wing" anarchism's goal to abolish society is not substantiated or even accurate.

II. There's no functional difference between communes/unions and States because ultimately, they are the final arbiters. Your argument is centered on who's governing as opposed to the ethics of government, which is central to anarchy and its principal objection--i.e. the lack of voluntarism.

III. The distinction is relevant to "left-wing" modification, not to the description of anarchy.

IV. Anarchy's goal is voluntary associations. Voluntarism manifests from individualism, so yes, individualism is the goal. Capitalism serves individualism best because Capitalism operates on individualized value-sets on which individuals base their actions; socialism does not. Socialism seeks to objectivize these value-sets on a strict worker-based contribution to the final product. Not to mention, its protocol to have this managed by "unions" and "communes."

V. Not by definition. Capitalism rejects government's, the State's, or any public regulation of the production and dissemination of goods and services. This description cannot be circumvented to service an ideology. Whatever you see in China, or whatever you saw in Nazi Germany was not Capitalism--especially Nazi Germany, whose public measures inspired the modern Democratic Party here in the United States.

3. Even if you are right that you should say more, highlighting the division is still good, as this division of disparate ideologies still wasn't made in the debate. In the end, two arguments showing that RM is wrong is better than one.

A. I think, unfortunately, we're just disagreeing on what the ideology fundamentally says. I say that anarchists want a government that equitably allows all to participate in decision-making that may result in some people losing the decision. You are saying that anarchists say the government only works if people can opt out.

I. Yeah, that's ok. Like, I don't think that anarchists are trying to pretend they want a realm of chaos and no social systems of making decisions and group activity. I don't think they would call this coercion since every member of the community has an opportunity to participate in the decision making.

II. I don't think dissent alone is punishable, hence why democracy exists. However, if the community votes 99-1 that murder should be illegal, not stopping that one percent from murdering the 99 percent recreates a hierarchy where one can harm others. By having a direct majority guide the decisions of the community, then a minority class doesn't get to stop things from happening, which is the definition of a hierarchy, smaller groups having more power. Most anarchists would be ok with the community stopping rapists, murderers, etc. for their dissent from community guidelines.

B. Voluntarism is only right-wing. I'm gonna answer the points more directly.
I. Left-wing anarchists are against the state, but they define state as distinct from government. This matters because they would not support the Soviet Union or Maoist China because there is a hierarchy in the state, where a small government class makes decisions regardless of the peoples wishes. Left-wing anarchists say that a small group of bourgeois do the same thing in representative democracy, both by controlling the economy and lobbying to have their candidates have more power. This is solved by direct democracy where all have an equal say in the creation of society. It's not about abolishing society, like right-wing anarchism, but making decision-making in society more equitable. The goals are fundamentally different.
II. The commune or union are not states, but governments. There is no direct hierarchical group that can make decisions, and that solves the problem.
III. Anarchy rejects the state. Left-wing anarchism makes this distinct from government. Right-wing anarchism doesn't.
IV. Anarchists would argue that individualism isn't the goal, but equitable access to the decision-making processes. However, they would also argue that capitalism is worse than socialism as socialism is where the workers each get an individual part of the decision-making process where capitalism has the it dictated to them. Sharing a lever of power is more individualistic then never accessing the lever of power.
V. State capitalists exist. Capitalism exists in modern-day China and Nazi Germany as privately owned businesses create profit to owners. Regulations do not dismantle capitalism, only taking the ownership away from the bourgeois/private individuals and giving it to the workers, either directly in libertarian models of socialism, or through the state in authoritarian models.

3. I knew he was talking about the criticisms coming from anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists, but it wouldn't have rested well with me to simply state that, and not explain the reason.

A. I believe anarchists are okay with voluntary government, but this is premised on the notion that each individual is his/her own first government. The governmental apparatus is likened to any producer of a good and/or service in the free-market. That dispute resolution and tort-accountability is a transaction--an exchange--among individuals, not a decree from a hegemony.

I. Subsequently, this leads to either the majority forcibly conscripting the labor and resources of dissenters, or seizing their lands in advent of non-compliance.

II. No, it's 80 of the worker/masses deciding what to do, and the 20 remaining facing the prospect of the consequences of their dissent, listed above.

B. Voluntarism is fundamental in anarachist concept, not contingent on right or left wing. Anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists fashion themselves as anarchists because they've conflated the State with the bourgeoisie. It's not that they object to the measures exercised by the State; they object to those for whom the State exercises its measures, and those whose ends the State serves. This is circumstantial. Anarchy on the other hand is a fundamental and principled objection to the State for what it is, and what it does, regardless of whom it serves. Anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists wittingly or unwittingly are pushing for a society organized by quasi states which serves its socialist economics--socialist economics which undermine individuality, and thereby voluntary associations. That is not anarchy.

The Capitalists as described by communists and syndicalists cannot impose on my freedom unless they have a mechanism which undermines my discretion as an individual. If this mechanism is the State or any form of government, they are by definition not Capitalists. They're just cronies. And this also hearkens back to their Socialist Economics, which, at least what I remember from what I studied, focuses on the distribution of wealth that, they argue, should be measured by the contribution of value to the final product.

2. Yeah, that's what I try to do. If you want to see the extreme example of this, you can look at my current debate with Sir.Lancelot. https://www.debateart.com/debates/4118-the-right-to-bear-arms-vs-gun-control I literally am retyping the all my case turns on Pro and my entire Con case every speech, despite them being untouched. No matter how lazy the judge is, there will be no doubt I won any of those points.

3. You have a valid critique of these forms of anarchism (as a syndicalist myself, I think it's valid anarchism, but that's not relevant for this round), but for this debate, all you need to say is that RM is describing anarcho-communists and not anarcho-capitalists, therefore their argument that capitalism and anarchism are incompatible is irrelevant to the question of anarcho-capitalists.
A. In regard to your critique of anarchism writ large, I don't think this is true. I don't think most anarchists would be ok with no system of governance in place and most would tell you they support a governmental apparatus. The argument why this isn't coercion like a bourgeois or state (as distinct from government) apparatus is two-fold.
I. You can choose to contribute to the system, but there is no punishment for leaving or not contributing. (I'll be honest, this feels unrealistic in the sense that, where do those who don't want to contribute to any system go? Liberals would tell you that you can opt out of the social contract, but every scrap of land is owned by a country.)
II. Direct democracy means that it's not coercion, but a mutual dialogue/negotiation. If the commune/union decides to up food production on a 80-20 vote split, then this is the worker/masses deciding what to do, not the bourgeois/state.
B. Voluntarism is only a right-wing anarchist concept. Not relevant to left-wing anarchism. Also, they would argue that capitalism creates classes that exploit and this does as much as the state to impose on your freedom.

1. Okay, understood.

2. It's funny you mention that. One of my issues with this debate was in fact the character limit. In Round Three, I somewhat make a reference to it. I had to cut a lot out. And you're right, I probably could've spent time at the very least pointing out which points my opponent has dropped. With that said though, I had to be very economical in how I used my characters.

3. The objection I would wager against left-wing anarchists' delineation of a State is the neglect in considering this: what is more a reflection of an unjust hierarchy than the capacity to arbitrate one's individual discretion? How does direct democracy in a union or commune provide a remedy? Anarcho-communists espouse the elimination of private property; how do they do that without undermining individual preferences or voluntary associations? And what's worse is that anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists seek to fix the price system so that the Capitalists don't "exploit" labor--referencing a redistribution of revenue in accordance to the commune's or union's arbitrary conclusions. If this was all voluntary, do you know what these communes and unions become? Private corporations, in which case they can stipulate terms that dictate the extent of their associations. But the voluntarism isn't present; and if voluntarism isn't present, then the anarchy isn't present. There would be no functional difference--at the very least, on principle--between what syndicalists and communists refer to as the bourgeoisie and their union/commune representatives. Hence, anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism are nonsensical. I could've gone into this further, but would I be willing to spend characters exploring a tangent which I initially thought wouldn't weigh much on the debate? Well, the proof is in the pudding.

4. Fair enough. I also agree with your point about communication being just as important as the argument itself.

1. I'm going to explain the different ways I could have evaluated this, and maybe the difference makes sense. All of them are different ways to interpret the minarchy/libertarian split, but they don't change what my vote would be.
A. I don't look at minarchism at all. I only measure the small government metric of libertarianism. (How I actually voted)
B. I look at minarchism and see it is defined as minimal government. I interpret this as the same as small government since no difference is given. (How I ideally should have voted upon reflection. The only difference is how close attention I pay, not to how I voted)
C. I look at the definition of minarchism as minimal government and say this is different than small government based on my own personal value and then default to small government as it is directly libertarian. (How I would vote if I personally intervened, but it has no consequence)

2. The extension makes no confusion. If you have the characters, always extend every point your opponent drops every speech. That way there can be no doubt in the mind of judges just as dumb or much lazier than me.

3. "State" as defined by left-wing anarchists is the creation of a distinct "class" of those who are hierarchically above the masses. A monarch, Soviet dictator, or elected representative would all fit this roll as, even if they have "approval" of the citizens, because they operate a separate hierarchical class. Syndicalists would say that the use of direct democracy in the union and anarcho-communists would say that the use of direct democracy in the commune would constitute governments (institutions that make social decisions), but not states as there isn't a distinct class. This is the original basis of anarchy as it originates from Kropotkin, with right-wing variants not really being formally created until Rand much later. My argument here isn't that one or the other is the true anarchy or is less hypocritical or that one is good, but simply that highlighting this difference in this round would have helped you as RM was trying to obfuscate this to say all anarchists hate capitalism.

4. That's fair. I'm enjoying it as well as this will force me to try and be more cognizant when going over these rounds. You were right that you brought up hypocrisy and I should be more watchful of that. These don't alienate me. I was just highlighting that my mistake, even if it is my mistake, unfortunately will be inevitable in debates where clear communication is not prioritized just as highly or even higher than good argumentation.

1. I'm still not getting the point. I'm not sure I understand how a distinction between minimum government and small government wouldn't produce a material change in your inferring that the definition of minarchy does not convey any representation of libertarianism or anarchy. Can you elaborate?

2. Why would I need to extend them? At the beginning of the debate, RationalMadman and I provided descriptions on which our entire arguments would be premised. Is this not enough at least in providing an implicit extension throughout the entire debate? I presume this is just a matter of preference.

3. Anarchism is most certainly individualistic. Anarchism is contingent on voluntarism--its principle objection against the State. And Voluntarism is contingent on individualism--i.e. the discretion of an individual to choose his or her associations, as well as determine the use and alienation of his/her time or labor. Not to mention the right to oneself. Anarcho-Capitalist objections to schools of thought like Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarcho-Communists, etc. are essentially based on the prospect of eroding voluntary associations in their attempts to regulate who produces and distributes goods and services, and how they do it. You remove the individualism, you necessarily remove the voluntarism. You remove the voluntarism, you necessarily remove the anarchy, given that any regulatory organization that undermines voluntary participation will be in effect "a State." Hence, Anarcho-Syndicalism and Anarcho-Communism are quite non-sensical especially in their adoption of Socialist Economics, which attempts to "objectivize" value. This is in effect what a State does.

4. I'm actually enjoying this back and forth. You've indicated, at least to me, that you thought about this thoroughly, even if I do maintain some objections as to what some of those thoughts are. You're right in that none of the voters are perfect, and the same would be true of debaters. And I assure you that I appreciate your taking the time to not just go through the debate but also to provide detailed explanations as to how you assessed the points and how you voted. And because of that, I figured long responses/exchanges would not alienate you. Take it as protocol at least in debates where I'm involved that--should you participate--you can leave as detailed a response as possible, and I will always take the time to read it and respond.

1. If there isn't, then small government was a good enough metric. If there is, then it wasn't made in round.

2. You're right, you did say it in the first speech. Extend things, don't leave them in the first speech. Also, if you make two definitions for a word since you had another definition for libertarianism, you need to explicitly say what the merge looks like or kick one by the end of the debate. Since definitions weren't extended through the debate, I went back and just read the first one.

4. Anarchism isn't inherently individual as we understand it. The government and state are distinct in left-wing anarchist study, with syndicalists, anarcho-communists, and anarcho-monarchists all believing a distinct government is essential, but not the state. Capitalists can also be statists. The definition of capitalism isn't free market, but private ownership.

5. You brought up the concept of hypocrisy in the line by line. Debate is 50% argument and 50% ethos. Conclusion or preface claims do a lot to win a debate. I'm not saying you're doing bad, you won the debate and did a phenomenal job. If I say you did or didn't do something that you're sure I'm wrong about, then highlight it more. I'm not perfect, but only imperfect people are going to vote on your debates. When I give those notes, I'm just saying the biggest flaws I take after spending two hours reading and taking notes on a debate (this one may have taken longer), not the biggest flaws that come from some objective truth.

I'll address your responses in the order that you numbered them.

1. Is there a distinction to be clarified between "minimum" and "small" government in the context of this subject?

2. I most certainly did. Go back to the first round, and check. In my post, under the description of "Anarcho-Capitalism (Taken from Mises.org,)" I provide a description of "Right-Wing Libertarianism (Taken from Wikipedia.)" The very last line of the description reads as such: "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." I would never have proceeded with my contention if I did not include a description of Right-Wing Libertarianism, which incorporated the non-aggression principle. I assure you that I need no one to do my work for me.

3. Exactly. What I think RationalMadman tried to do was argue that Anarchy/Anarcho-Capitalism consisted of principles or maintained a system which would produce the opposite effect in practice. The problem with this approach is RationalMadman's lack of empirical evidence. Even if we were to entertain that security organizations or private banks would kill their clients or competition on whim, RationalMadman would have to substantiate either these perpetrators are in fact anarcho-capitalists, or the system maintained by anarcho-capitalists purposefully facilitates the perpetration of these, as you put it, involuntary associations in spite of its moral stance. As you aptly pointed out, AleutianTexan, private security organizations would be how anarcho-capitalists respond to the perpetration of involuntary association. RationalMadman, I presume, expected the audience to infer that the government's management of tort is a priori more effective than it would be if it were handled by the private sector. And knowing this would make anarcho-capitalists hypocritical. There's no reason to take that inference other than an ipse dixit.

4. To be a capitalist is to be an anarchist. It is fundamental to Capitalism that the State or government not get involved in the production and/or dissemination of goods and services. And even political and social arrangements/transactions can be expressed as goods and services. And this is one of the points I tried to emphasize as it concerned right-wing Libertarianism: why would it seek to exclude the public goods it proposes government should provide from the free-market, if it in fact advocates for the free-market? Capitalism and Anarchism can be totalized into anarcho-capitalism because both are fundamentally individualistic. I presume Rothbard knew this when he coined the term.

5. That may be. I object only to the suggestion that it had NO structure.

6. In Round Three, I made sure to evoke the subject of hypocrisy. I, in fact, do it at least three times. Here:

"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."

and

"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."

and

"All you've suggested here is how Right-Wing Libertarians could be against free speech (which suggests HYPOCRISY.)"

I assure you that in no round since the debate started did I lose focus on the subject of hypocrisy.

I'm only going to comment on things that we're fundamentally seeing differently and isn't a semantic distinction.

1. You are right that you tie minarchy to right-wing libertarianism, however, minimum government is not defined as distinct from small government, so this changes nothing materially about my decision. Also, as a sidenote, I flow everything on a spreadsheet when I read these, so if things aren't getting extended, the farther back they are, the less likely I am to remember/account for it. If you think something is important for your case, you need to bring it up every speech.

2. You never say libertarians support or uphold the non-aggression principal. It's not in your definitions or your explanation, you just say they violate. Libertarians violate 100 theoretical concepts from 1,000 ideologies, you have to make clear connections. Regardless of what I know about right-wing libertarian/anarchist philosophy, I'm not going to do the work for you.

3. In regard to voluntary association, the argument RM makes is that crime, which would run rampant, would be involuntary associations. Even if he is right, you make the argument that private security organizations are how the society deals with this, meaning there is an attempt to voluntarily stop involuntary associations, and the effectiveness of this strategy is irrelevant to hypocrisy. Essentially, this is more a shot at RM for not saying that crime is an intentional inclusion of involuntary associations that is not rectified by private security for a billion reasons that they didn't give.

4. The anarchist divide between socialist anarchists and capitalist anarchists is in three ways that you could highlight. I'm just going to use socialist and capitalist for character reasons, but they both represent the anarchist version.
A. Socialists make a delineation between government and state. Capitalists don't, so this delineation means that capitalists don't want any governmental body.
B. Socialists are against capitalism? Like, that answer feels obvious when he's reading a different ideologies axioms and trying to apply it to yours.
C. Anarcho-capitalism is a phrase that means something completely different when divided into it's parts, with anarchism being a distinct branch and capitalism being a distinct branch, both with a million parts underneath. To act like those ideas, which are broad and have differing opinions in between can be totalized against one another does a disservice to the nuance of ideology writ large and is intentionally deceiving.

5. From my perspective, the structure is hard to follow. You can try to change it or not, but when clearly numbered/labeled points are utilized, I know exactly what your answering everytime, especially since each paragraph has multiple distinct points and warrants in it.

6. Round three, you got lost in the line by line work and didn't bring up hypocrisy till you reclarified in Round four.

"The Non aggression principle isn't hypocritical."

I never stated that the non-aggression principle was hypocritical; only that maintaining the principle while advocating the coercive measures of a State was hypocritical.

"The term used to describe the concept can be misleading, but essentially it means that it is unethical to take life, liberty or property with the exception that it is reasonable to do so when it comes to defending the negative rights of yourself or others."

For the most part, yes.

"Some may say, well what about taxation for police that is violating the NAP, but something they don't consider is that you can get high tax compliance and make it voluntary by taking it at the point of sale for example."

Then that's not a "tax." That's just a "price" for services rendered or to be rendered. The difference is that the former is codified with the threat of initiating (deadly) force, while the latter isn't.

"The NAP isn't some Buddhist mantra though where people are expected to not defend themselves from aggression."

Never stated that it was. Note that in my description of the NAP, I made sure to qualify it by applying the term "instigate." One does not undermine the NAP by defending oneself from aggressive force.

I wouldn't go and celebrate my victory just yet, especially considering that there's a little more than three weeks left to vote. And while I agree with you that I perhaps chose the better side--essentially anarcho-capitalism is less hypocritical than right-wing Libertarianism--the fault in your arguments also stem from what AleutianTexan pointed out was a fervor to argue a speculated result as opposed to an internal contradiction. I mentioned to you earlier that it was readily apparent that your intention was to argue, "PRO-STATE = NOT HYPOCRITICAL; ANTI-STATE = HYPOCRITICAL," without much consideration to the nuance of positions that favor the state in an expanded capacity, and ones that favor it in limited capacities.

Thanks.

Your summary was quite astute with the exception of one thing: my response to the absence of a police force was not merely to defend oneself, though that is an option. I also mentioned hiring private security, as well as having local precincts privatized and function in a free-market. With that said though, you got the overall gist of the argument. And for that, I appreciate your vote.

They advocate for a level of coercion while also claiming to maintain the "non-aggression principle." That is where the hypocrisy lies, and I state as much in my opening argument."

The Non aggression principle isn't hypocritical. The term used to describe the concept can be misleading, but essentially it means that it is unethical to take life, liberty or property with the exception that it is reasonable to do so when it comes to defending the negative rights of yourself or others.

Some may say, well what about taxation for police that is violating the NAP, but something they don't consider is that you can get high tax compliance and make it voluntary by taking it at the point of sale for example. Or you can have a minarchist state where those who want police protection can pool their resources to receive it, which is another form of voluntary taxation.

The NAP isn't some Buddhist mantra though where people are expected to not defend themselves from aggression

"Good job bringing the last speech back to hypocrisy over good v. bad governance, however, if you do that every round, I have to do a lot less work to vote for you by the end."

I did do it every round since the debate commenced. It was a supplement to my primary goal going into this debate that the audience knew AT ALL TIMES what the resolution of this debate was. Too many times I've experienced voters favor positions with which they agree, as opposed to arguments which best serviced the resolution. So in every round of this debate, I made sure to incorporate the resolution of this debate.

First and foremost, I appreciate the vote in my argument's favor. Let's move on to some of your points:

"There was a definition of minarchism, but I don't know if this is representative of libertarians or anarchists."

Naturally, this would be representative of right-wing Libertarians. I even state as much in my opening argument.

"The coerced doesn't matter because libertarians claim to be a state still, meaning they advocate for a certain level of coercion, so it isn't hypocritical for that coercion to exist."

They advocate for a level of coercion while also claiming to maintain the "non-aggression principle." That is where the hypocrisy lies, and I state as much in my opening argument.

"Athias attempts to answer this in two ways, you can be free of crime without coercion and that the freedom you lose from police is worse."

I never state that one could be "free from crime" or that the liberty lost from the police is "worse." The point I was making was that anarcho-capitalism maintains its principles in terms of absolutes while right-wing Libertarians maintain their principles relatively. The relativism is what ultimately leads to contradiction, e.g. coercing the funding of a task force that would ultimately undermine one's liberty.

"Do they support a "small government"? Small government is never defined, so do I think only police and currency are small? I guess?"

That is part and parcel to the hypocrisy: what is "small" government? I did my best to delineate small government in the context of right-wing Libertarian advocacy, even if I didn't outright define it.

"RM also tried to complicate it by playing semantics of sovereignty but dropped this after Athias pointed to the other definition."

I'm pleased you noticed. He was clearly attempting manipulation.

"Anarchists are definitely genuine about no government and only private institutions. They aren't hypocritical about voluntary associations (as the anarchist doesn't create the criminal like the libertarian creates the police), but they do fail to deliver."

"Delivering" was never the point. (And there can be debate on whether anarcho-capitalism "fails to deliver" and whether your inference can be substantiated.) But I'm pleased you made the distinction.

"I don't know if you know the difference, but make sure you answer the anarchism hates capitalism warrant better."

I could answer it no better. In order for there to be Capitalism, the state must not be involved at all. This is ingrained and essential to Capitalism, contrary to the inferences of Marxists/Socialists. But to go further into that would warrant its own debate.

"For fucks sake, this debate needs structure."

This debate does have structure. I can only speak for myself, but it is my preference to address certain points while quoting them verbatim, so that the audience knows what points I'm addressing in particular. While numbered and bulleted points may suit some, it does not suit me (always.)

You picked the better side, I see that now.

I liked this topic choice for me vs you though, it let me see some more of how you and voters understand politics and strategising a society. In hindsight, this was a lopsided topic given that whoever gets Pro, need only hit home that Libertarians have hierarchy and that this interferes with pure freedom and latch onto that, to fundamentally have an unstoppable victory.

Sir. Lancelot,
If you're asking generally, I get a spreadsheet and use it to fill out every argument (a speech is in a column and a back-and-forth against the opponents is in a row) that is color coded. If you're asking for this round, I was given three axiomatic premises for each ideology, so I just saw if they were hypocritical to those axioms. According to the debate, libertarians are hypocritical about two and anarcho-capitalists are hypocritical about one, kinda. No reason to reinvent the wheel when it's so cut and dry. If either side had told me one axiom was more important than the others and was the only thing that mattered, I would adopt that framework, but they just left me to figure out what is what in this round.

Wylted,
Libertarian philosophy is interesting. I have no interest in defending it through these comments, but it serves as a good critique more than a standalone philosophy.

I don't plan on reading the debate. I have no opinion.

I did see your question to libertarians. The state exists to secure natural law. Negative rights essentially, and so the coercion of the state is seen as a necessary evil to secure the negative rights.

Positive rights cannot be precisely defended without choosing winners and losers so is generally thought to be bad.

The issue with libertarianism is essentially 3 things.

1. Technically a libertarian society could lead to society as it is. A bunch of people getting together and buying the American land and deciding they will turn the land over to anyone residing in the land under the condition they can implement the same exact governance we have now. What happened there perfectly aligns with libertarian philosophy

2. Protecting negative rights get tricky when you start getting into the nitty gritty. Noise complaints for example are treated like a trespassing of sound, but it can get absurd and make it so any sound your neighbor makes, even loud snoring can be a type of trespassing and don't even get me started on how neighbors photons of lights are technically trespassing as well.

3. The ideology is unbending. For example. If aliens were to invade the planet and say the only way to save the planet is if 75% of people joined the military. Well according to libertarian philosophy we would have to die if we were one short of the 75% instead of having the government just force one person to do it to save millions of lives.

The philosophy is not contradictory at all, it just isn't practical and objection number one is a huge issue as well

What is your method of weighing opposing arguments?

Do you use a tally system?

Unfortunately, I already answered it, but he's right. RM did make the argument that it creates tyranny. I didn't buy the argument, but I didn't explain why in my original vote, so they deserved that explanation. What do you think of the decision, as someone who isn't involved in the debate?

He made the comment 3 minutes after your vote is up. I would ignore it. That isn't enough time to really digest what you said and mull it over

Feel free to argue with me (that's not meant sarcastically, I swear). I should be able to defend my decision since this affects your ranking.

In my notes, I skirt over a lot of the nuance of the conversation, and that is a disservice as that is at the core of the topic (random note, I just got deja vu typing that). Going through the individual places where "tyranny" comes up (not like the quoted word, but the concept).

1. Crimes are never defined as a state. Even if they are bad, individual criminal elements like your security guard killing you or you being robbed are not a hierarchal state, which is the definition I was given to evaluate the round by Athias that wasn't contested by the end of the debate.

2. I'm told that the wealthy will get to make all the rules and are nepotistic, but Athias tells me these rules can't be coerced onto people. You never answer that security can be bought or give me good in-depth analysis that the poor can't afford this and would be at the whim of the rich, so I assume everyone has enough money to afford security to resist the nepotists.

3. There is a performative contradiction RM makes that isn't rectified by the end of the round. I'm told there is simultaneously no rules and that the elites will make all the rules and enforce it on people. Athias tells me there are rules that people have to voluntarily associate with. Even if one of the narratives RM gives me is true, I don't know which I am to vote on, especially Athias isn't self contradictory and this clearly answers both.

4. The argument that people would only benefit themselves and their family is answered by saying that people can choose to engage with who they want. You don't tell me this forms a "state", so I buy that Athias is fulfilling their burden.

5. Finally, even if I grant you win that it creates a state, that is till only one hypocritical point for Athias compared to your two. This is an on balance debate and nobody told me how to weigh different hypocrisies against one another, so I just count one for one.

I didn't make the error you hint at (the nazis and genocide mistake), I said those parts of it make it instantly go from an anarchy to a tyranny. Clearly I didn't make the case clear enough for you.

Notes for RM
1. You get lost in bad v. good government. You're right, anarcho-capitalism is a shit system that allows criminals to run rampant and nothing is secure. The problem is that is what anarcho-capitalists are trying to sell you. There's a difference between internal contradiction and bad results. For example, if a Nazi told you they want to do genocide, that's bad, but not hypocritical.
2. You are winning the anarchism hates capitalism debate because Athias either shit the bed on the answer or doesn't know the difference between socialist and capitalist anarchy to point out your use of the literature, but you drop it. This could have been an a prior showing of hypocriticalness that would have been an easy place for me to vote.
3. For fucks sake, this debate needs structure. If my decision is bad, it's because both of yall are typing essays that I'm just comparing till the second half. Having bulleted, numbered, or titled sections for every offensive argument makes judging this 100x easier, and if the other person doesn't do it, it's really easy to put them down as the roll in the proverbial mud.

Notes for Athias
1. I don't know if you know the difference, but make sure you answer the anarchism hates capitalism warrant better. For example, communists and fascists both are authoritarian, but saying communists hate capitalism doesn't mean fascists do as well. Same thing with anarchists and anarcho-capitalists.
2. For fucks sake, this debate needs structure. If my decision is bad, it's because both of yall are typing essays that I'm just comparing till the second half. Having bulleted, numbered, or titled sections for every offensive argument makes judging this 100x easier, and if the other person doesn't do it, it's really easy to put them down as the roll in the proverbial mud.
3. Good job bringing the last speech back to hypocrisy over good v. bad governance, however, if you do that every round, I have to do a lot less work to vote for you by the end.

Great round to both of yall. If either of yall have any questions, please feel free to message, question, or comment me!

Before I get into a decision, individual arguments, and notes for both sides, I just want to say this was frustrating because the concept of hypocrisy got lost as both sides tried to prove a good government. However, there was a really good debate here, nonetheless.

I vote Athias, here's why:

1. I have to ask, what do libertarians say they are (I go to them first just because they were the first advocated for). I get one definition from Athias (I know Athias is Con on the site, but Pro for the resolution in round, so I'll just use Athias and RM, as opposed to Pro and Con to describe yall. Nothing I say is meant personal.) that says libertarians are liberals who support liberty over all else, assumingly fraternity and equality based on classic liberal doctrine. This is later extended to property rights and small government. There was a definition of minarchism, but I don't know if this is representative of libertarians or anarchists and no one does that work for me, so I ignore it.

1A. So, first question, do libertarians place liberty over all other concerns? The main divide is whether can you be free/liberated if you're in danger of criminals and whether can you be free if you can lose elections and be coerced at all. The coerced doesn't matter because libertarians claim to be a state still, meaning they advocate for a certain level of coercion, so it isn't hypocritical for that coercion to exist. The other question, about being free if you are in danger of crime, has to go through levels. Athias attempts to answer this in two ways, you can be free of crime without coercion and that the freedom you lose from police is worse.
1Aa. I buy that private security fails, mostly because Athias's answer to that they fail is that the police fail to protect as well.
1Ab. I buy that the police do fail their job and can't be held accountable. RM's use of wording that implies that they can SOMETIMES be held accountable makes me skeptical that they protect more than they infringe. This implies that safety is placed over liberty at least to a certain extent.

1B. Do libertarians support the free market? No, it was dropped that they support a monopoly over certain issues with no answer to this. We get the answers about stopping fraud and money devaluation, but I at least have some defense that consumers wouldn't go to bad actors (this is unanswered) and that the state is worse at handling currency (only answered with the bad actors warrant).

1C. Do they support a "small government"? Small government is never defined, so do I think only police and currency are small? I guess?

2. Anarcho-capitalism is defined by Athias as no hierarchical government, voluntary association, only private institutions, and the possible existence of public projects. RM pushed back a little bit by reading left-wing anarchism and saying this was antithetical to capitalism, causing tension in the definition, but Athias said this was ethical questioning only and RM dropped this, so I buy that Athias's definition stands. RM also tried to complicate it by playing semantics of sovereignty but dropped this after Athias pointed to the other definition.

2A. Does anarchism (this represents anarcho-capitalism because I'm lazy) support abolishing a hierarchical government? Yes, RM never claims that they keep a secret state.

2B. Does anarchism only endorse voluntary associations? RM complicates this question by bringing up no entity to stop crime, but Athias is very clear that there are just private, for-profit entities that stop crime, so I buy that, even if not perfect, voluntary associations are the goal.

2C. Does anarchism only endorse private institutions? Yes, RM never claims that there are secret public institutions.

In conclusion, even without getting into the nuance of the points, two of anarchisms are uncontested and all of libertarianism are contested, making me feel comfortable pulling the trigger there without sorting through all of the arguments. However, I sort through them because I don't have friends to talk to instead (jk, I had fun reading this debate, honestly). Libertarians are hypocritical about their supposed priority of liberty because they endorse police who are aggressive and worse for liberty and the free market because they allow for state monopolies over certain areas. I buy they are honest about a small government writ large, however. Anarchists are definitely genuine about no government and only private institutions. They aren't hypocritical about voluntary associations (as the anarchist doesn't create the criminal like the libertarian creates the police), but they do fail to deliver.

That's an interesting take.

You weren't bad, I wouldnt say Id vote for you here but that is irrelevant. It takes losses, brutal gutpunching losses like the ones that led to Oromagi wincing and hiding twice over, to truly teach you as a debater to appreciate that voters decide the winner, not you.

I think it was a medium debate, I think you were pure offense by the end, terrible defence and structure but since I was also primarily offense over defense it made for a decent show.

I can clearly see how I won in my eyes and see how you won in yours. Debating here is in a 1v1 arena where others decide the winner and not either debater or their banter and popularity. It is the sacred aspect that makes me crave and respect sites like this and DDO even if I resent the hierarchy.

Yes, voters will decide who wins our contest, but who better to offer input on our debate than the participants themselves? You've taken quite a few opportunities to challenge me on the subject of anarchism, and I'm merely curious as to whether this debate of ours "lived up to the hype." I assure you that I have no intention of poisoning your well.

Voters decide the winner

What do you think of the debate in its entirety, now that it's over?

In other words, I'm being arrogant and complacent?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CdMGXb6UMAEZpUk.jpg

You did it in the third round as well, but like Public-Choice state, it shouldn't be relevant in one's rendering one's vote. Now that your part in this debate is complete, how do you think your arguments in their entirety fared?

I mean, I probably would have figured it out. I'm not one of those word nazis who will automatically deduct points because you switched pro with con. You're good.

Damn it, I called Athias Con in my final Round more than once, I forgot we swapped.

All the arguments still flow though.

Thanks.

Final round is up from me, waiting on Athias now.

I want a good debate. And if "interrupting your mistake" helps you take it up a notch, then that's all the more reason to take it up a notch myself. In the words of the illustrious Kirsten Dunst, "BRING IT!"

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/napoleon_bonaparte_103585

Take this for what its worth, but your points are all over the place. Your argument essentially boils down to: "PRO-STATE = NOT HYPOCRITICAL; ANTI-STATE = HYPOCRITICAL." Here's to the prospect that we both put our best foot forward in the final round.

It's an interesting topic, I'll try to drop a vote on it when it finishes.

If you are interested, please do follow. :) Round 2 from me is up.

Right at the buzzer!

Sure thing.

If you're fine with it, I suppose that's all that matters. Expect my response shortly.

Remind me to come back to this one. As a member of the Right-Wing Libertarianism community it'll be fun to read lol