Anarchism is incompatible with the principle of individual rights

Rules of the Debate: I quoted Rothbard because Pro claims to be attacking anarcho capitalism without presenting any definitions. He just says its "no government" without a warrant. This is a total straw man of Ancap, so I quoted Mr. Ancap. You can also just take my word for it that anarcho capitalism = non-aggression. I used the Iceland source because Pro's hypothetical is experiential. He is outside the realm of principles. So if you're going to allow him to say "What if X happens in real life?" you should allow me to just point at a real life example. I) Individual Rights Pro has dropped my argument that we should only consider the non-aggression axiom. Please just focus on this. It is the foundation of anarcho capitalism and really simple. a) Homesteading We don't have to follow rights to their logical conclusion in this debate. I don't have to figure out whether or not 2nd trimester semi-consensual-rape abortion is consistent with a rights theory. All that matters is that we can, in principle, violate rights. b) Violation of Rights We don't need a brightline for rights violations in THIS debate. It is enough that one could exist and that people could have different interpretations of it. II) Rights of Third Parties Pro writes: "any coherent concept of rights must include the right to uphold those rights". This is circular because he's saying that his base-rights presuppose rights to enforcement, which makes them consequent to their own presupposition. Consider the infinite regression this implies: you have a right, so you have a right to enforce that right, and a right to enforce your right to enforce rights, etc. His theory is also false because you can still have a PRINCIPLE OF RIGHTS without enforcement. Pacifists could walk around THINKING that people had rights but not actually move to enforce them. III) The monopoly I'm going to tag these into distinct arguments. They do not correspond to my previous tags, which Pro dropped. a) Principles vs Hypotheticals Pro says he is making an argument about principles. He is not. He is saying "what if people had different interpretations of rights". Opinions are not relevant to the principle of rights. Anarcho capitalists theorize about non-aggression independently of individual opinion. b) Non-monopoly Can Exist Pro concedes in the Ann/Bob/Craig/Danny example that you can have multiple arbiters of disputes in society. He makes an implicit power-argument, but power is not a sufficient condition for monopoly. So you can have multiple arbiters of dispute. C) Non-monopoly does exist Pro points out that I do not actually provide the link on iceland. I'm sorry I made this mistake. In the future, contact me with any questions/problems. http://www.daviddfriedman.com... Pro says he couldn't address my argument on this topic. There is no argument. It happened. Polycentric non monopolist law happened. That is all. D) Enforcement vs Legitimacy Pro goes on to say that this is a debate about upholding rights. It is not. Pro wrote in the OP that: "Anarcho capitalism implies a negation of the legitimacy of individual rights.". Legitimacy is just an opinion. You can think that murder is illegitimate and still do nothing to stop it. Nothing in the OP implies that I have to construct a theory of rights enforcement... (which can't be done in principle anyway because rights enforcement is physical) E) Monopolist Rights Enforcement The claim of a monopolist is that everyone HAS to use their courts. This is a violation of self ownership. It is analogous to a monopolist barber claiming everyone had to get haircuts from them. It doesn't matter if a court has the "correct opinion" on rights any more than it matters if a barber gives the best haircuts. It is still a violation of self ownership. This is self evident. Pro also dropped my grammar comparison. We don't need a central authority to enforce grammar laws even though disagreements are possible. F) Limitations of Central Authority Pro concedes governments can get it wrong. This is enough to win me the debate because it shows that a monopoly does not solve the problem of "correct rights". G) Irrelevance of Central Authority Pro writes that "What matters is not who enforces any given interpretation of rights; but what that interpretation is.". This turns his ENTIRE CASE. He's saying that it doesn't matter if you have 1 person or 1000 people interpreting rights so long as their interpretations are correct. It is empirically unlikely that everyone will have the same interpretation of rights, but Pro has just conceded that monopolizing rights is unimportant to the PRINCIPLE of rights. He pays brief lip service to checks and balances etc. You can throw this out as another hypothetical. I also claimed that a monopolist-arbiter would have no incentive to restrain itself just to uphold objective rights. Pro has no response. H) Government is a type of Anarchy Government cannot solve for the "problems" in anarchy because government agents are in a state of anarchy vis-a-vis each other. So even if you buy no other arguments, Pro can't win the debate because he wants anarchy too, even if it is anarchy confined within a political apparatus. I) Pro Concession... Lastly, Pro claims that "one's fallibility does not mean that it is illegitimate to uphold one's interpretation of rights of third parties to one's best ability,". I don't know what debate Pro is reading. He's saying that it's okay to run around enforcing your individual interpretation of rights. That is anarchy. That is not a monopoly. I can't believe he just conceded the debate. IV) The Government Pro really did try to define government in terms of society. He blunders about, then gives a definition of society that makes his definition of government circular. Government = rights enforcement for society; Society = when people "need" homogeneous rights i.e. government. He concedes that this is difficult to apply in real life. In fact it is impossible because it's such a bad definition. Hint: No one else uses this definition... he's just trying to cover his mistake. Blizzard and Juggle enforce individual rights WITHIN THEIR DOMAINS, just like all governments do. Pro's definition would include these non-government entities, so that's another reason why we know his definition is bad. Pro also concedes my ship/captain example, which unhinges his definition of a state. No where does Pro attack my definition, which should be used for its conceptual clarity and ease of applicability. Government = aggressive monopolist on final dispute resolution. V) Anarchism Con does not contest that anarcho capitalism only requires that we must not attack innocent people. We CAN enforce their rights if we want. There is no barrier to legitimate rights enforcement. Therefore, anarchism is consistent with both the APPLICATION and PRINCIPLE of individual rights. Put even more simply, anarcho-capitalism is defined as non-aggression. I.e. it is defined as individual rights. I hate to win a round on semantics, but Pro chose the debate without understanding any of the relevant terms. VI) Fundamental Question of Politics Since government is aggressive by definition, it automatically violates rights and is therefore incompatible with them in principle. Combine this with all my unanswered analyses - particularly the observation that state agents are still in anarchy themselves - and there is no way for Pro to win the debate. Anarchism is the only ideology consistent with 100% individual rights. This is because anarcho-capitalism is defined by the non-aggression axiom. So by definition, it never allows you to violate individual rights. Pro's only challenge to this has been to deviate from a debate on principles and introduce a hypothetical monopoly scenario which he conceded in the very next round. He has no remaining attacks on real anarchism, (unwittingly) conceding the debate twice in IIIG/I.