Instigator
Points: 3

Anarcho-Capitalism would never work

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
Ragnar
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Economics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender
Points: 7
Description
No information
Round 1
Published:
1) The entire society would be based on a profit motive. Virtually nothing would be done that isn't motivated by personal profit. That means you can say bye bye to the environment among other things because there would be no government or public sector to regulate companies or protect the environment from the careless money-hungry industrialists.

2) There would be nothing stopping monopolies from forming and thus the government would become whoever has the most money.

3) There would be no one to make sure the non-aggression principle and other such Anarcho-Capitalist bollocks is maintained because whoever has the most money would make the rules and do whatever they want.

4) There would be no law or police to defend and establish property rights and thus who owns what would be decided very often through the initiation of force.

5) The closest thing to police would be the private armed thugs and extortionists working for the wealthy.

6) Eventually a super wealthy class would form and all the important land and resources would be owned by the one percent, thus the average person would have little to no economic freedom or property rights.

7) It would end up reverting back to croney capitalism and having a plutocratic government and we'd be at square one.

Published:
First, pro's opening argument is plagiarized.

Second, that entropy causes systems to fail, does not imply they never worked.

Third, it has worked several times throughout history.
Round 2
Published:
First, pro's opening argument is plagiarized.
I own that account on CD. It's not plagiarism if I wrote it. I can prove the account is mine if I need to

Second, that entropy causes systems to fail, does not imply they never worked.
That was not even part of my argument. Voters please note that Con has not refuted or even addressed a single one of my arguments. His laziness should be considered poor conduct as well.

Third, it has worked several times throughout history
Celtic Ireland
Icelandic Commonwealth
This is not "Anarcho-Capitalism" it is a plutocratic republic. There is a state but your position in the state is based on wealth and status.
Rhode Island
It didn't last very long.
Albemarle
It was only "Quasi-Anarchistic" and it didn't last very long.
Holy Experiment
It didn't last very long.
American blah blah blah west
Still subject to the American government and very temporary as it was only "anarcho-esque" while in a transitional period as the states were set up.
Laissez Fair City
The article admits it was unsuccessful.
Published:
The debate is not about if Anarcho-Capitalism might eventually fail, but if it would never work at all.


Definitions:
Merriam-Webster offers two definitions for never: "not ever : at no time," and "not in any degree : not under any condition."
Anarcho-Capitalism is harder to define, but if anyone feels they need a primer, the first paragraph or two on Wikipedia will do.


Plagiarism:
There is currently nothing to imply it was anything other than a copy/paste job from someone else.
The original author DeathWolf666, has not posted any statement of a name change.


Entropy:
Con has not refuted or even addressed a single one of my arguments.
As they were dealing with problems of eventualities, my second point concisely responded to the entire Gish Gallop.


Precedents:
If any lasted a greater amount of time than "never," the resolution is negated.

  1. Ireland (approx. 1000 years): My point stands uncontested. Pro did provide a link, but the link was off topic (attempting to prove they did not live up to modern libertarian ideals, is different from implying they were not anarcho-capitalists).
  2. Iceland (332 years): I'll grant that it was not a pure sample. However, the point of it was to exemplify a successful anarcho-capitalist legal system.
  3. Rhode Island (12 years): "It didn't last very long" does not prove "never" as would be required by this debate resolution. Further, it did not fall for any of pro's listed reasons.
  4. Albemartle (23 years): I'll grant that it was not a pure sample. While similar, it was libertarian instead of properly anarcho-capitalist.
  5. Holy Experiment (9 years): "It didn't last very long" does not prove "never" as would be required by this debate resolution.
I humbly drop the remaining two samples from my source.


Pure Rebuttals:
  1. "Protect The Environment": Irrelevant to anything other than measuring if environmental protections work. China is the world's worst polluter, but it works; not liking the way something works, is a far cry from showing that it does not work at all.
  2. "Monopolies": If they don't work they won't last (and are unlikely to form at all), so this point was in my favor without any need for refutation.
  3. "Non-Aggression Principle": Irrelevant as being nice is not required for a system to work.
  4. "Property Rights": People on average are not thieves and murderers; it does not take the presence of a state sponsored police officer to stop people from raiding and pillaging the local farmers market en mass. You see something you like at a friend's house, they could probably not prove in court that you stole it, but it remains in their possession rather than yours. Thus the existence of private property does not rely on the government.
  5. "Private Armed Thugs": These exist in any system, and do not prevent them from working. As anyone who's been to a dance-club or rock concert probably notes, it's usually private rather than state issued protection. Were the state to do a perfect job on this, private security companies would not exist.
  6. "Eventually... The One Percent": While I could explain the flaws in the assumptions, pro has pre-refuted this point by insisting "who owns what would be decided very often."
  7. "It Would End Up...": Pro chose to insist that this (along with point #6) in no way indicate something did not work (R2, P2). That eventual failure is "not even part of my argument" converts this into a virtually a concession that something lasting long enough "end up..." means it worked.
Round 3
Published:
The debate is not about if Anarcho-Capitalism might eventually fail, but if it would never work at all.
If a system collapses rapidly or leads to horrible results, did it "work" ? Enough with the word games, you are just trying to win without putting forth any effort.

There is currently nothing to imply it was anything other than a copy/paste job from someone else.
The original author DeathWolf666, has not posted any statement of a name change.
As they were dealing with problems of eventualities, my second point concisely responded to the entire Gish Gallop.
Actually you are a lazy, intellectually dishonest cretin looking for ways to reframe my arguments rather than dispute them.

If any lasted a greater amount of time than "never," the resolution is negated.
The resolution is that it will never work, not that if it's attempted it will collapse immediately or fail to even get started. Debating you is pointless because you are a cheap pseudo-intellectual weasel trying to avoid having to actually win by debating.


My point stands uncontested. Pro did provide a link, but the link was off topic (attempting to prove they did not live up to modern libertarian ideals, is different from implying they were not anarcho-capitalists).
Celtic Ireland was tribal, and had "kings" according to the article I posted. Also, Anarcho-Capitalism is a form of extreme right wing libertarianism, rather than just "small government" they would eradicate the government entirely. That being said, the article was absolute over kill, because not only are they not Anarcho-Capitalists, they weren't even Libertarian Capitalists.

"It didn't last very long" does not prove "never" as would be required by this debate resolution. Further, it did not fall for any of pro's listed reasons.
It still had make-shift government functions, but I will grant it didn't fall for the reasons I specified, but only because it never got the chance to. In smaller communities it can last a lot longer especially since they had outside support and they still technically were subject to Colonial Rhode Island law so it wasn't lawless.
Albemartle (23 years): I'll grant that it was not a pure sample. While similar, it was libertarian instead of properly anarcho-capitalist.
"My point stands uncontested. Pro did provide a link, but the link was off topic (attempting to prove they did not live up to modern libertarian ideals, is different from implying they were not anarcho-capitalists)."
You are a hypocritical and intellectually dishonest debater. 

"It didn't last very long" does not prove "never" as would be required by this debate resolution.
the resolution is that astronauts will never make it to the moon, therefore if any rocket so much as exits the earths atmosphere the resolution is negated, even if it falls back to earth crashing and burning afterwards.

 Irrelevant to anything other than measuring if environmental protections work. China is the world'sworst polluter, but it works; not liking the way something works, is a far cry from showing that it does not work at all.
Any system that destroys the environment does not work, for the same reason that removing weeds by detonating a nuclear bomb in your garden does not work. Sure, the weeds are gone...but so is the garden.
Also for 99% of it's citizens, China's system does not work as they are living in abject poverty and slavery.

If they don't work they won't last (and are unlikely to form at all), so this point was in my favor without any need for refutation.
Actually, no. A monopoly may "work" for a monopolist but it doesn't work for society, which should be obvious. Also since the goal of Anarcho-Capitalism is a free market and to be free from institutional control over your life, and monopolies both inhibit free market activity and have power over people's access to the means of production, it definitely does not work for Anarcho-Capitalism. The more monopoly there is the less Anarcho-Capitalist it is, because the free market is destroyed and the rich become the government.

Irrelevant as being nice is not required for a system to work.
It's not about being "nice", it's about not murdering someone and stealing all their shit rather than engaging in free market activity because there is nothing to uphold law and order in an anarchic society.

People on average are not thieves and murderers; it does not take the presence of a state sponsored police officer to stop people from raiding and pillaging the local farmers market en mass. You see something you like at a friend's house, they could probably not prove in court that you stole it, but it remains in their possession rather than yours. Thus the existence of private property does not rely on the government.
If there was no law, then you would be able to get away with a lot more, thus many people would. In fact, so many people would, that it would cause others to resort to the same thing just to survive, and it would begin a vicious cycle of serial killing, serial looting shinanigans.

These exist in any system, and do not prevent them from working. As anyone who's been to a dance-club or rock concert probably notes, it's usually private rather than state issued protection. Were the state to do a perfect job on this, private security companies would not exist.
ONLY private ones would exist, and they would not be beholden to law but to whoever pays them. Private security agencies are still subject to law when there is a government.
This would cause the system to not work, because it would destroy the free market and turn anarchy into tyranny.

"Eventually... The One Percent": While I could explain the flaws in the assumptions, pro has pre-refuted this point by insisting"who owns what would be decided very often."
The latter in no way refutes the former. You should probably not be smoking crack before you post in a debate.

"It Would End Up...": Pro chose to insist that this (along with point #6) in no way indicate something did not work (R2, P2). That eventual failure is "not even part of my argument" converts this into a virtually a concession that something lasting long enough"end up..." means it worked.
The way you debate makes me seriously wonder if you have a learning disability.






Published:
Plagiarism:
I can admit I was mistaken. Pro framed himself of plagiarism for reasons I shall not guess.
Nor shall I guess why he chose to put all his words in bold; nor why he ironically complains so much about laziness.


Entropy:
Pro has chosen not to contest that this point addressed his entire argument. Instead he opted for Ad Hominem attacks, leaving his whole case refuted in a single line back in R1.


Precedents:
  1. Ireland (approx. 1000 years):
    First, it is a random dude's WordPress blog, complaining that he doesn't like what various peer-reviewed PhDs wrote on the topic, and doing so with zero evidence to support his disagreement. Hardly comparable to an article as the word is normally used.
    Regarding pro's sole cited claim from the source, that the word "king" was used: As is made clear several times on that page, they were figureheads  appointed and removed at the whim of the people, "the King could not make laws" (direct quote from the author), "he was in no sense sovereign and had no rights of administering justice" (cited by the author, and not disagreed with by him), etc. The author even paraphrased respected Irish historian Goddard Henry Orpen whom "described Ireland as being without laws." That people organized enough to use figureheads, fails to imply that they were not anarchists.
    Besides, as relates to this topic the author in question was already proven wrong: "Anarcho-capitalists are not opposed to contractual communities having territorial monopoly over their legitimately owned property. What made Ancient Ireland anarcho-capitalist was the fact that the law was not legislated but customary. Anarcho-capitalists are not opposed to customray law as long as it is based on private property rights."
  2. Iceland (332 years):
    Pro has dropped the point, yielding that anarcho-capitalist legal systems can operate successfully for centuries.
  3. Rhode Island (12 years): 
    Pro complains that "make-shift government functions" work without government, undermining his entire case.
  4. Albemartle (23 years):
    Pro has decided to wholly drop this point, opting to instead make Ad Hominem attacks.
  5. Holy Experiment (9 years):
    Pro has decided to wholly drop this point.


Pure Rebuttals:
Not strictly necessary as pro yielded my entropy point which dealt with all of these...
  1. "Protect The Environment":
    Pro just makes the unsupported assertion that "any system that destroys the environment does not work." And further claims that China's population is 99% slaves, which is just racism against a country which only has 0.21% of their population living in slave-like conditions.
  2. "Monopolies":
    Pro being opposed to specialization of production aside, as is pointed out on his own source: "Anarcho-capitalists are not opposed to contractual communities having territorial monopoly over their legitimately owned property." And for a further bit of evidence, we may not like that Internet Explorer is installed on our computers (Mac users aside), but Microsoft as a Monopoly worked just fine, and we all survived.
  3. "Non-Aggression Principle":
    If the presence of police is all that keeps us from turning into axe murderers, no one would go camping or otherwise leave the cities. Without evidence, pro's claim cannot be taken seriously as a reflection of anyone's nature but his own.
  4. "Property Rights":
    See previously reply.
  5. "Private Armed Thugs":
    Pro claims that free-market security would destroy the free market... No historical examples have been provided to suggest this outcome; rather my historical examples disprove pro's claim.
  6. "Eventually... The One Percent":
    Pro has decided to wholly drop this point, opting to instead make Ad Hominem attacks.
  7. "It Would End Up...":
    Pro has decided to wholly drop this point, opting to instead make Ad Hominem attacks.


Moving The Goalpost:
To end on a truly hilarious note, pro has requested the resolution be changed:
the resolution is that astronauts will never make it to the moon, therefore if any rocket so much as exits the earths atmosphere the resolution is negated, even if it falls back to earth crashing and burning afterwards.
Were the new resolution used, he would lose this debate due to failing to make even a single point toward it.
And not to bore everyone with the history of failed government space programs, but private industry has overtaken the majority of them in spite of dealing with massive interference from government which would not be present in an anarcho-capitalist society.

Added:
--> @Ramshutu
We both agree where the debate ultimately came down to and are both perplexed at why neither debater defined 'work' but where you and I differ is in how close this debate was. This is actually type1's closest debate other than his flat earth debate, in my opinion. Ragnar severely underperformed.
#1
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
This is actually pretty easy.
This all boils down to the definition of what it means for a system to “work”. While I think this wasn’t nearly thrashed our well enough during the debate, with pro mostly implying that con is obviously wrong - and pro mostly pushing a very preferential dictionary definition - not only did pro cover what workings means better, and back this position up - but even if I use my own intuition a political system that lasts multiple generations - or a thousand years matches any practical definition.
I felt con tearing apart pros only objection to the Ireland example more than sufficient, by pointing out the primary issues that pros sources raised: specifically regards to the king not making the laws.
As a result, con negates the resolution simply with the Ireland argument - as this on its own shows one example of anarcho capitalism working: as a result or no other arguments pro or con raised on unrelated matters can overturn this negation - as con has to simply show one example. Arguments to con.
Pro backed himself into a corner with the resolution, and whilst I may have awarded conduct points to him if he had argued con was being unfair - he instead resorted to name calling:
“Actually you are a lazy, intellectually dishonest cretin looking for ways to reframe my arguments rather than dispute them.”
“Debating you is pointless because you are a cheap pseudo-intellectual weasel trying to avoid having to actually win by debating.”
Name calling and as Homs like this have no place in debates. Conduct to con.