I wish you were CON, as your instigation would suggest, but I'll be keeping an eye on this one. If you want someone to vote on this debate, feel free to contact me.
There were so many more rappers I wanted to include, but there was no way Nas wouldn't make the cut. "Purple" is one of my all-time favorites, and so it became my final submission. I think all the artists submitted from both sides are quite stellar. Win or lose, this was fun.
If the time for argument wasn't two days, I would've accepted. And perhaps you can provide a more tangible reference for speed. Are we talking about Busta Rhymes fast? Or Eminem in "Forgot About Dre" fast? Either way, I'll pay attention to this battle.
I might be interested in accepting this debate. But the time allotted for the submission of one's argument is too short. (I usually don't log in on weekends.) I don't mind accepting if we can handled this debate quickly (i.e. before the weekend.) Any interest in negotiating the stipulations and parameters of this debate?
The notion that one can observe and inform on the moral values of "most humans." And this would necessitate a majority since you are arguing "most." Even if you reference a study or studies, there's no sample size that can accurately represent 7.9 billion people, about four billion of which you'd have to prove are "evil." If by "on balance" you intend to shrink the scope of your analysis and affirmation, then your conclusions will be severely degraded since they will likely rely on unsubstantiated ecological inferences.
I would've accepted if the time allotted for submitting one's argument was fewer than two weeks, and the scope of the argument's resolution didn't allow for absurdity. There's no way either side will be able to substantiate either conclusion, even if it's "on balance."
I think that your rap battle ideas are fun. If you ever do a rap battle where Notorious BIG is involved, and I can assume his persona, please let me know. I'll happily accept.
Want to take me on? I subscribe to individualist philosophy so my views on politics, economics, philosophy, history, religion, etc. reflects said subscription. Controversial subjects can be fun I suppose; artistic debates as well. I never enter a debate based on the subject alone, however. So it will depend on the proposition of the debate you intend to instigate.
Outside of the explicit homosexual imagery, I'm actually quite fond of this show. I'll try to follow along as this debate continues. It would've been preferable if some descriptions and stipulations were provided, but since this debate was instigated by a first-timer, I can give just a little leeway.
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. 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. 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 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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.)
Since Wylted has conceded, which has assured your certain victory, shall we commence our "slightly less anticipated than the most highly anticipated rap battle of all time," soon, RationalMadman?
You should publish an argument for the first round declaring that you're CON. I'll then publish an argument proposing the subject. Don't worry, I won't choose a subject that's difficult to argue. Though, I will need some time to think about it.
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.
You miscalculated. Since you're the instigator of this debate, you are the one who must publish first, regardless of the subject matter. Would you like to take a gamble and choose a side, and allow me to choose the subject so that we don't waste two rounds figuring out who's arguing what?
First, settle down. Second, I merely expressed levity in the fact that he would dare use lyrics you originated against you. Third, there's no "plagiarism" since your lyrics don't fall under intellectual property, unless you'd like to show certification of some trademark. You neither own the words, nor the sequence in which they're stated. Last, all I'm saying is that this is funny, and tried to put my own humorous spin on it--i.e. "there's nothing more 'gangsta' than taking someone else's shit." Take a chill-pill, I haven't declared favor toward any side yet, especially considering there are still four rounds left. If you want a preliminary report on how I gauged each of your openings, then my assessment would be that neither of your lyrics have impressed me so far. But you guys have time.
There's nothing more gangsta than taking someone else's shit. Let it stand. I'm in stitches right now because Wylted had the audacity to poach RationalMadman's lyrics and use it against him. Haha!
Once again, it is not an assumption. A fetus's being human is tautologically true. They are categorized as the species known as homo sapien, a.k.a. human being, as much as you or I.
"However, many would argue that a human doesn't start as a human."
And "many" would be inferring a logical absurdity.
"They argue a human isn't a human until birth when it is fully developed."
And this nothing more than an arbitrary division. Birth does not speciate homo sapiens. Not to mention, it doesn't fully develop upon birth, making the consideration of the stages of human development as discrete species completely absurd.
"This is bullshit, but it has been argued. And it can he argued using this definition. I did this on purpose."
Exactly. That means your definitions are entertaining the prospect of bullshit contentions. The only people who would endorse those contentions are those who subscribe to bullshit.
"You are importing your presuppositions onto the statement."
Once again, it's not a presupposition. I haven't presented an inductive argument; just a tautological truth.
"The statement says "developmental plan of its kind." Which means it follows the developmental plan. It doesn't state "human development." Which is altogether a different meaning.
It is up to the debater to prove this developmental plan is ALWAYS human life, and does not TURN INTO human life later"
Yes, but the subject focuses on abortion, which logically indicates that the fetuses to which you refer are human fetuses. Your definitions place the onus on the contention to substantiate/prove a logical absurdity. And this just hearkens back to my point: the only recourse the contention has, which does not result in either bullshit or absurdity, is to call into dispute the fetus's life given that disputing its humanity will inevitably and necessarily result bullshit/absurd inferences.
"like with a tadpole turning into a frog"
Not the same thing; tadpoles experience metamorphosis which doesn't necessarily depend on their being gestated; fetuses, like other human beings, experience growth. The best way to illustrate this is to consider an infant the day before its born--nothing really changes other than its location.
Except it is impossible for the contender to prove the opposite. You defined a fetus as "an unborn vertebrate that follows the developmental plan of its kind." What is its "kind"? Who performs abortions? Non-humans? Unless the scope of this subject includes for pubescent and post-pubescent non-human vertebrates performing abortions, which is absurd, then the contender has no recourse but to challenge the concept of a fetus's possessing "life." It would be like demanding a contender to disprove that you or I are human; it's not about Intelligence "winning" (no pun intended.) The extension of an argument seeking to disprove the fetus's humanity will result only in a logical absurdity.
If I were to create a debate proposing, "O.J. Simpson Did Not Murder Nicole Simpson," using your definitions, would my not pointing out or stipulating that Nicole Simpson was in fact a human being provide mitigation, or can her having been a human being be implicitly and generally understood? The fetus is human; the fetus has to be human: it has a human's genome, and it has human parents. What is there to dispute in that context? This leaves only the fetus's "life" to be called into question. And in my opinion, this will lead only to regressive arguments over arbitrary descriptions and philosophical abstracts.
I wish you were CON, as your instigation would suggest, but I'll be keeping an eye on this one. If you want someone to vote on this debate, feel free to contact me.
It'll all depend on how you define religion.
Bump
Bump
There were so many more rappers I wanted to include, but there was no way Nas wouldn't make the cut. "Purple" is one of my all-time favorites, and so it became my final submission. I think all the artists submitted from both sides are quite stellar. Win or lose, this was fun.
I'll take a look at this in the days to come and may (or may not) render a vote.
Yeah, one can't go wrong with J.Cole. And Gift of Gab speaks for himself. I like your choices too, especially Chip and Bugzy's songs.
If the time for argument wasn't two days, I would've accepted. And perhaps you can provide a more tangible reference for speed. Are we talking about Busta Rhymes fast? Or Eminem in "Forgot About Dre" fast? Either way, I'll pay attention to this battle.
I may vote on it once I've had time to look it over.
No problem.
I might be interested in accepting this debate. But the time allotted for the submission of one's argument is too short. (I usually don't log in on weekends.) I don't mind accepting if we can handled this debate quickly (i.e. before the weekend.) Any interest in negotiating the stipulations and parameters of this debate?
The notion that one can observe and inform on the moral values of "most humans." And this would necessitate a majority since you are arguing "most." Even if you reference a study or studies, there's no sample size that can accurately represent 7.9 billion people, about four billion of which you'd have to prove are "evil." If by "on balance" you intend to shrink the scope of your analysis and affirmation, then your conclusions will be severely degraded since they will likely rely on unsubstantiated ecological inferences.
I would've accepted if the time allotted for submitting one's argument was fewer than two weeks, and the scope of the argument's resolution didn't allow for absurdity. There's no way either side will be able to substantiate either conclusion, even if it's "on balance."
I think that your rap battle ideas are fun. If you ever do a rap battle where Notorious BIG is involved, and I can assume his persona, please let me know. I'll happily accept.
Hopefully the both of you will find my reasons satisfactory.
I was once "scared-straight":
https://youtu.be/aSG-xyAJ-F4?t=420
"What about Stoicism vs Hedonism?
The focus could be on which leads to a better, more fulfilling life."
I wouldn't be able to provide a sufficient argument for either as to which leads to "better."
"Or WW2.
Hitler vs Stalin?
Who was more evil between the two."
Moral relativism does not extend logical or even consistent conclusions. Therefore I'd have to pass.
What else you got?
Want to take me on? I subscribe to individualist philosophy so my views on politics, economics, philosophy, history, religion, etc. reflects said subscription. Controversial subjects can be fun I suppose; artistic debates as well. I never enter a debate based on the subject alone, however. So it will depend on the proposition of the debate you intend to instigate.
Both.
Outside of the explicit homosexual imagery, I'm actually quite fond of this show. I'll try to follow along as this debate continues. It would've been preferable if some descriptions and stipulations were provided, but since this debate was instigated by a first-timer, I can give just a little leeway.
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. 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.
I came through in the clutch.
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 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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.)
I'll think about it.
I'm slightly disappointed, but it's your prerogative, nonetheless.
That's an interesting take.
Since Wylted has conceded, which has assured your certain victory, shall we commence our "slightly less anticipated than the most highly anticipated rap battle of all time," soon, RationalMadman?
You should publish an argument for the first round declaring that you're CON. I'll then publish an argument proposing the subject. Don't worry, I won't choose a subject that's difficult to argue. Though, I will need some time to think about it.
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.
What do you think of the debate in its entirety, now that it's over?
You miscalculated. Since you're the instigator of this debate, you are the one who must publish first, regardless of the subject matter. Would you like to take a gamble and choose a side, and allow me to choose the subject so that we don't waste two rounds figuring out who's arguing what?
I was. I stand corrected.
Do you really want to debate this?
First, settle down. Second, I merely expressed levity in the fact that he would dare use lyrics you originated against you. Third, there's no "plagiarism" since your lyrics don't fall under intellectual property, unless you'd like to show certification of some trademark. You neither own the words, nor the sequence in which they're stated. Last, all I'm saying is that this is funny, and tried to put my own humorous spin on it--i.e. "there's nothing more 'gangsta' than taking someone else's shit." Take a chill-pill, I haven't declared favor toward any side yet, especially considering there are still four rounds left. If you want a preliminary report on how I gauged each of your openings, then my assessment would be that neither of your lyrics have impressed me so far. But you guys have time.
There's nothing more gangsta than taking someone else's shit. Let it stand. I'm in stitches right now because Wylted had the audacity to poach RationalMadman's lyrics and use it against him. Haha!
Given that we clearly don't see eye to eye on this, I'll leave it, here. I'm interested to see how this debate will play out.
"That's your presupposition."
Once again, it is not an assumption. A fetus's being human is tautologically true. They are categorized as the species known as homo sapien, a.k.a. human being, as much as you or I.
"However, many would argue that a human doesn't start as a human."
And "many" would be inferring a logical absurdity.
"They argue a human isn't a human until birth when it is fully developed."
And this nothing more than an arbitrary division. Birth does not speciate homo sapiens. Not to mention, it doesn't fully develop upon birth, making the consideration of the stages of human development as discrete species completely absurd.
"This is bullshit, but it has been argued. And it can he argued using this definition. I did this on purpose."
Exactly. That means your definitions are entertaining the prospect of bullshit contentions. The only people who would endorse those contentions are those who subscribe to bullshit.
"You are importing your presuppositions onto the statement."
Once again, it's not a presupposition. I haven't presented an inductive argument; just a tautological truth.
"The statement says "developmental plan of its kind." Which means it follows the developmental plan. It doesn't state "human development." Which is altogether a different meaning.
It is up to the debater to prove this developmental plan is ALWAYS human life, and does not TURN INTO human life later"
Yes, but the subject focuses on abortion, which logically indicates that the fetuses to which you refer are human fetuses. Your definitions place the onus on the contention to substantiate/prove a logical absurdity. And this just hearkens back to my point: the only recourse the contention has, which does not result in either bullshit or absurdity, is to call into dispute the fetus's life given that disputing its humanity will inevitably and necessarily result bullshit/absurd inferences.
"like with a tadpole turning into a frog"
Not the same thing; tadpoles experience metamorphosis which doesn't necessarily depend on their being gestated; fetuses, like other human beings, experience growth. The best way to illustrate this is to consider an infant the day before its born--nothing really changes other than its location.
Because human development isn't subject to metamorphosis, while a Frog's development is. The analogy isn't apropos.
Except it is impossible for the contender to prove the opposite. You defined a fetus as "an unborn vertebrate that follows the developmental plan of its kind." What is its "kind"? Who performs abortions? Non-humans? Unless the scope of this subject includes for pubescent and post-pubescent non-human vertebrates performing abortions, which is absurd, then the contender has no recourse but to challenge the concept of a fetus's possessing "life." It would be like demanding a contender to disprove that you or I are human; it's not about Intelligence "winning" (no pun intended.) The extension of an argument seeking to disprove the fetus's humanity will result only in a logical absurdity.
If I were to create a debate proposing, "O.J. Simpson Did Not Murder Nicole Simpson," using your definitions, would my not pointing out or stipulating that Nicole Simpson was in fact a human being provide mitigation, or can her having been a human being be implicitly and generally understood? The fetus is human; the fetus has to be human: it has a human's genome, and it has human parents. What is there to dispute in that context? This leaves only the fetus's "life" to be called into question. And in my opinion, this will lead only to regressive arguments over arbitrary descriptions and philosophical abstracts.
Okay.