Anarchism is incompatible with the principle of individual rights

The rules for this debate As Pro, I will argue that Anarchism – Anarcho-Capitalism in particular – implies a negation of the legitimacy of individual rights. Con will defend the Anarchist position that, on the contrary, individual rights are possible only in Anarchy. This is a debate on principles, not “real-world” applicability. I will attempt to show that the principle of individual rights is incompatible with Anarchism, and logically necessitates a government. Likewise, Con will attempt to show that the principle of individual rights in incompatible with a government, and logically necessitates Anarchism. No outside evidence. All arguments must be developed by the contestants themselves. Definitions are part of the argument. Consequently, they may be contested, if this is central to an argument. Nitpicking on semantics is in bad style. The debate will focus entirely on the issue of individual rights. No note is taken of any other merits or failings of either system. Burden of proof is equal. Both contestants will have to show that their respective proposed systems are compatible with individual rights; as well as that the opposing system is not. Both contestants must argue for what they actually believe. Specifically, Con must him- or herself be convinced of the correctness of some sort of Anarcho-Capitalist ideology. Round 2 is reserved for rebuttal. No new points may be introduced. I define individual rights and government below as part of my argument. Anarchism is defined as the opposition to any government. (Con may suggest some other definition based on his or her own argument, within reason.) My argument I Individual rights: First will have to come a definition of individual rights. Individual rights encompass the right of any individual to take any course of action that does not deny another individual that same right. I.a) Property Rights: Homesteading and Trading I expect to be in agreement with CON that individual rights are specifically to be applied through property rights. Since we both argue in the Libertarian tradition, we are likely to share the view that property can be attained through homesteading, or trading. I define homesteading in the following way: that any man who has first made any particular resource or land useful to humanity (“mixed his labor with it“, so as to convert it from an idle and unused state to “wealth”, to be used by men in pursuit of some goal) is its rightful owner; that is, he alone has the right to control, use, or dispose of the wealth he has thus created. Any wealth attained in this way, may be traded with another rightful owner of property in any mutually agreeable exchange (or given as a gift). I except further, that we are in agreement that each man has a property in his own person, that is, that he has the right to control and use his mind and his body to create such wealth (“labor”) or to pursue any other goal. He may contract the use of his body or his mind. I.b) Violations of Rights Having defined individual, and property rights, we can define violations thereof. A violation occurs whenever a man is injured by another, or forcefully denied by another the right of using his mind or his body, or forcefully deprived of his rightful property. II The Rights of Third Parties I expect that there will be no major disagreement on the above. However, I have so far only specified rights as they apply to one individual. This ignores the basic nature of rights. If rights mean anything at all, beyond a pure moralistic assertion, it is that I as a third party am entitled (or even obligated) to intervene wherever rights are violated. I am entitled to enforce the rights of third parties. It is this important part of the definition of rights which Anarchism, implicitly or explicitly, denies. III The Monopoly It is impossible to assume the responsibility of enforcing the individual rights of third parties, without also assuming a monopoly on the definition of rights. When I intervene in what I define as a violation of rights, I must do so according to my own definition of rights. If now someone else, however, disagrees, and does not define what I am defending as a right, I must therefore, according to his definition of rights, be violating rights myself. Thus, either he intervenes in turn, or he refrains from enforcing the rights of third parties. It is because of this that differing concepts, or definitions, of rights cannot coexist in the same society, if they are to be enforced. IV The Government We have seen how any concept of rights of third parties can only be enforced by assuming a monopoly on the definition of rights. An entity which successfully assumes and enforces this monopoly within a society, is its government. In other words: Government is that entity which enforces the rights of third parties and successfully assumes a monopoly on the definition of those rights. V Anarchism Since we have seen that any defense of the rights of third parties necessarily assumes the above monopoly, and thus a government, we can only conclude that (consistent) Anarchism opposes the enforcement of the rights of third parties; by implication, any meaningful concept of individual rights. VI The Fundamental Question of Politics To close, let me illustrate the difference between proper Libertarian principles, and Anarchist principles. The fundamental question of politics is: What should be enforced (and by what means?) The proper Libertarian answer to the first is: individual, and property rights. The answer which Anarchism implies reduces this to the ability of anyone to enforce anything, by any means. Rather than any principle, it is simply power which Anarchism designates as ultimate authority. It means defining “right” as “might”. This is fundamentally incompatible with the principle of individual rights, upon which proper Libertarianism must be founded.