Anarcho-Capitalism would never work
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
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
Con has not refuted or even addressed a single one of my arguments.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- Albemartle (23 years): I'll grant that it was not a pure sample. While similar, it was libertarian instead of properly anarcho-capitalist.
- Holy Experiment (9 years): "It didn't last very long" does not prove "never" as would be required by this debate resolution.
- "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.
- "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.
- "Non-Aggression Principle": Irrelevant as being nice is not required for a system to work.
- "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.
- "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.
- "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."
- "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 debate is not about if Anarcho-Capitalism might eventually fail, but if it would never work at all.
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.
If any lasted a greater amount of time than "never," the resolution is negated.
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).
"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.
Albemartle (23 years): I'll grant that it was not a pure sample. While similar, it was libertarian instead of properly anarcho-capitalist.
"It didn't last very long" does not prove "never" as would be required by this debate resolution.
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.
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.
Irrelevant as being nice is not required for a system to work.
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.
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.
"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."
"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.
- 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." - Iceland (332 years):
Pro has dropped the point, yielding that anarcho-capitalist legal systems can operate successfully for centuries. - Rhode Island (12 years):Pro complains that "make-shift government functions" work without government, undermining his entire case.
- Albemartle (23 years):
Pro has decided to wholly drop this point, opting to instead make Ad Hominem attacks. - Holy Experiment (9 years):
Pro has decided to wholly drop this point.
- "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. - "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. - "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. - "Property Rights":
See previously reply. - "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. - "Eventually... The One Percent":
Pro has decided to wholly drop this point, opting to instead make Ad Hominem attacks. - "It Would End Up...":
Pro has decided to wholly drop this point, opting to instead make Ad Hominem attacks.
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.
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.
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.