On balance, Anarchism is More Humanitarian than State Planning

NEG REBUTTAL: As a preface, the neg has criticized Anarchism without expounding an alternative organizational theory or attacking my O3. Ballot goes aff by default. To correct the Neg's first paragraph, I did say there is an incentive to cheat on libertarian rights. I nowhere rejected any possible greed or "evil" in humans. See my O3. Neg is skeptical that trade disputes can work themselves out. I spiked this in my C2, where I explain that dishonest trading results in economic losses for the whole community, creating incentive to solve this problem. Neg does not rebut the function of incentives outlined in my O1. Regardless, a historical example of anarchist trade law is the Law Merchant. Roderick T Long explains (1) : "An example of voluntary law is the Law Merchant, a system of commercial law that emerged in the late Middle Ages in response to the need for a common set of standards to govern international trade. The merchants, fed up with the excessive rigidity of governmental laws regulating commerce, and frustrated by the lack of uniformity among the commercial codes of different nations, simply formed their own Europe-wide system of courts and legal codes. For enforcement, the Law Merchant relied not on state-imposed penalties but on credit reports; those who refused to abide by the system's rules and decisions would have a hard time finding other merchants willing to deal with them." So boycott is one option. There are other enforcement mechanisms consistent with anarchism. Neg goes on to speculate chaos would ensue if there were private law enforcement. Law and Order arise on the market because security is demanded. It is possible that aggression is also demanded, but Economic forces serve as a natural check on private security. The cost of aggression is much higher under anarchy where costs are born privately, versus statism where costs are born socially. The neg also worries that there will be no equality or justice under anarchy, but it really depends on what people demand and what works. I will say that there is likely to be more legal equality under anarchy because private security firms bear their own operating costs. State courts are easier to bribe because they socialize costs. It is also a little rich for her to talk about justice when statism relies on coercion of innocent people. Neg goes on to assume that currency can only arise by state fiat. She is very incredulous, but attitude is not an argument. Money historically arose out of barter as the most "saleable" good (2) (3). Hence gold, silver, etc. I will wait for her to develop a theory of state banking before attacking fiat currency. Differing conceptions of law is also brought up as a potential source of conflict in anarchism. My C2 spiked this, and the Law Merchant is applicable, but I'll buttress it with some more history. Hasnas explains (4): "English law provides a nice illustration of how law evolves when not preempted by government. When people live together in society, disputes inevitably arise. There are only two ways to resolve these disputes: violently or peacefully. Because violence has high costs and produces unpredictable results, human beings naturally seek peaceful alternatives. The most obvious such alternative is negotiation. Hence, in Anglo-Saxon times, the practice arose of holding violent self-redress in abeyance while attempts were made to reach a negotiated settlement. This was done by bringing the dispute before the communal public assembly, the moot, whose members, much like present-day mediators, attempted to facilitate an accommodation that the opposing parties found acceptable. When reached, such accommodations resolved the dispute in a way that preserved the peace of the community." Neg claims that I assume government actors are evil, while anarchist actors are automatically good and free from corruption. I made no such assumption. Her concerns about the poor and weak under anarchy are addressed above where I explain the relative disadvantages of state courts. Neg cites Kosovo, Bosnia, and Somalia as examples of failed anarchy. Somalia has fared better under anarchism than statism (5). Even if this were untrue, neg hasn't explained why a state would work better, or why we should argue in anecdotes before sound theory. She cites lack of successful anarchist precedent. But many good things were unprecedented. It is likely that the neg's ideal state, whatever that is, has never existed either. Regardless, I cite medieval iceland as an example (6). Neg conceptualizes government as "nothing more than a bunch of people to begin with". This definition destroys all ground for debate. The girl scouts are a "bunch of people" but they are not a government. My D5 explained that "states are characterized by their method of organization, namely aggression". This definition is superior because of its clarity and ability to identify groups normally considered states. AFF CASE: O1 unchallenged Offense: Anarchism has good incentive structures, see rebuttal C1 unchallenged Offense: Anarchism provides an increase in the standard of living. C2a challenged Defense: Provision of security is simply a collective action problem. Neg does not show why it is unsolvable. C2b unchallenged Offense: Problems in anarchy are self correcting O3 unchallenged Offense: Utopia is not an option. Neg has to explain her alternative. C3 unchallenged Offense: Self ownership and peace are humanitarian C4 challenged Defense: Neg is skeptical about the formation of an anarchist society. Does not speak on long term stability. In closing, I rebut the neg's opening remark that anarchism is too idealistic. Serious anarchists must think about incentives and game theory problems in developing their political ideology. Statists play god from the ivory tower, calling out "more justice" or "more equality". I agree with David D Friedman that you should "drop the assumption that government will automatically make the right regulations and instead try to figure out what regulations it will be politically profitable to make, and what their consequences will be." (1) http://libertariannation.org... (2) http://projects.exeter.ac.uk... (3) http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org... (4) http://everydayanarchist.com... (5) http://mises.org... (the link to the cia factbook is broken https://www.cia.gov...) (6) http://www.daviddfriedman.com...