On balance, Anarchism is More Humanitarian than State Planning

== Rebuttal == C1) Pro writes that under states individuals are unable to choose between providers of specific services. Why? I can walk to the vending machine and get a Pepsi, a Coke, a Snapple... In other words, I can choose between providers of specific services. It's true that some types of government limit choice, but not true that choice only exists in anarchy. Moreover, there is no guarantee of variety in anarchy. If there is only 1 provider of a specific good or service, then your choice is limited to 1. So, if Pro's point here is that you need anarchy for choice, then this point fails considering I have choices and do not live in anarchy, and that anarchy does not guarantee choice. Further, he clarifies that anarchy is preferable simply because it maximizes free trade. However, he hasn't defended why a completely free market is the most preferable option, or that trade cannot exist under state governance. C2) Pro again cites two examples of stateless law: Law Merchant (Lex Mercatoria) and Anglo Saxon Law. Lex Mercatoria existed in the medieval ages, and the A.S. law he described is over 1,000 years old. It is beyond naive to expect these outdated systems to be applicable in today's massive global economy. Trade has expanded far beyond a few merchants; this jurisdiction does not address issues regarding intellectual property, internet technology, corporations, legal battles and other problems. Additionally, it is debatable whether the law was uniform in nature or applied equally to everyone who subordinated to it [1]. Ironically, these are some of the very same problems I brought up in the last round, so simply citing this example does not alleviate my concerns about this policy and in fact reiterates them. Linking me to other sources also does not address my concerns specifically; I could easily provide Pro with a bunch of links, but the purpose of this discussion is to have a debate in which we each have the same space to debate things in our own words. Pro writes, "There's already a system in place for dealing with [problems]. The difference between these legal institutions and a State is they aren't formed aggressively." In other words, he thinks every state institution can exist as a non-state institution. Once again, I'll extend my questions regarding law enforcement, courts and payments. I would like to know how a non-aggressive (not necessarily violent) system would work. It seems to rely on things like boycotts which does not answer my presented question of morality as just one example. Pro mentions, "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." However, private "security firms" have no one to answer to but themselves or the people funding them making them far easier to corrupt. On the contrary, a democratic intervention can make it so the legal systems in place - which are supposed to apply to all citizens - can be held accountable by the people they serve. Suppose Pro accuses me of stealing. What would happen in his society? He could call the "police" or equivalent thereof, but what would they mean to me? What if I did not like them, fund them, etc? Why would they have any legal right whatsoever to apprehend or punish me? I fail to see how this "police" is different from the state police if I do not agree with the people in this organization or the power they have. Pro has failed to respond to my inevitable tyranny of the majority argument. He notes, "Laws can be effective even if some people don't agree with them." However how is that any different from the forceful denial of self-ownership that he vehemently attacks regarding the state? I am curious as to what "enforcement mechanisms" these groups like private police would have and why. I disagree that he's effectively outlined law enforcement and construction. Pro continues, "Trade is a positive feedback loop. Destruction is a negative feedback loop." Destruction here refers to crime. We've already agreed that people are greedy by nature, and we have no reason to assume that people would suddenly start acting morally 100% of the time just because anarchy ensues. Here's another issue: Suppose 99% of the town believed murder was wrong. I'll let Pro explain how this society can condemn and/or punish murder before attacking his plan or explain how it is no different or better than "state coercion" or being forced to submit to an unchosen authority. In R1 Pro stated, "Attacking innocent people with the intent to manipulate them into a social arrangement moves the affected group out of anarchism." However, any law not universally agreed upon or supported by everyone commits the same offense. Pro concludes "Neg's arguments boil down to 'you can't trade if you don't have law,' and my response is 'maybe, but you can have law without states.' First - you can trade without law. That's obvious. Second - You can have law without states, but (a) Pro has not sufficiently explained how creation of that law would emerge -- i.e. who deems something legal or illegal, or (b) how it's preferable to government law today. His argument is: If you want to do good business and turn a profit, you don't go around killing people or being a tool -- you compete with desierable goods and prices. This, of course, does not address what happens when people DO harm others C3) In this point Pro concedes that anarchism doesn't guarantee peace. Peace is something most strive for; we have no reason to believe that anarchy is the ideal model for it. He notes, "Self ownership is a good thing. Universal self ownership requires anarchism." No support for this vs. the social contract theory has been offered by Pro so we have no reason to accept it. Conclusion) Pro says, "She has to explain why people in anarchy can't have order even though there is a huge incentive to establish it." I never said they can't have order, but that I don't see how it's preferable to the state. He says there is "great historical precedent" for his system, but his 2 examples are out-dated and inadequate. The Somalia and currency arguments will be addressed next round. == Proposition: Social Capitalism == Output is maximized through sound social management of the macroeconomy. Government regulation of markets can lead to superior economic outcomes as evidenced in government sponsorship of the internet, basic securities regulation and historical precedent [2]. Social capitalism validates traditional capitalism. The "invisible hand" should be free to the greatest extent possible to create market efficiencies for all participants. However, under SC, government regulation is required to protect the market from manipulation. The market must be protected so the invisible hand can work for maximum growth. Regulation should be as limited as possible so that Tier-One participants can generate the greatest GDP. However, regulation is needed to ensure that individuals do not exploit markets for personal gain at the expense of market growth and stability. [3]. In short, SC is a system of open markets, unambiguously regulated by an activist state, and one in which the state intervenes to reduce the greater inequalities that competitive markets will inevitably generate [4]. The state should probably be democratically elected, and though there are vast problems with democracy, I feel most can be remedied by a more educated and informed society as well as more applied principles of direct democracy (in addition to some other adjustments). [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] Ramirez, Steven. Fear and Social Capitalism: The Law and Macroeconomics of Investor Confidence. Washburn Law Journal, Vol. 42, pg. 31. [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] Rudd, Kevin. The Monthly. "The Global Financial Crisis."