Minarcho-Capitalism Should be Preferred to Anarcho-Capitalism.

Note to the Judges Note to the judges of this debate. There was originally a flaw in the initial rules. They way rounds were set out would have left Pro writing a rebuttal to Con's opening case before Con's case was even written. A revision is being made. Here is the new round layout: 1) Acceptance 2) Pro Opening/Con Rebuttal 3) Pro Refortification/Con Opening 4) Pro Rebuttal/Con Refortification This clears up a huge issue in turns and makes the debate more smooth. Thank you for tolerating the confusion. Refortification Thank you, Lupricona, for your refutation! You drive a hard debate, but I enjoy a challenge. I will refortify my position with the same method you attempted to refute my contentions with. Minarchism is Strong Where Anarchism is Weak 1) I will begin by presenting to you my state funding plan. This plan is actually very simple; the government would institutionalize a sort of loan system which they would charge interest on. That's it. Participation in this program is entirely voluntary and therefore does not violate the Non-Aggression Principle. Such a program will also be more than enough to sustain a minarchistic government who's sole function is providing the bare minimum to society. As far as I am aware, there are not any major flaws in this proposition and all that was required to defeat your counter-argument was to demonstrate that management of a minimal government does not require aggression. I have done so and successfully defend my position. 2) I do understand that no human being is neither inherently moral nor amoral and because of that there will never be a flawless society; however, this is not a relevant counter-argument. My argument isn't that anarchism is flawed while minarchism is not; this is a misrepresentation of my position. I observed the flaws in anarchism, if I had left my argument at that you would have refuted my entire contention; however, I demonstrated that minarchism properly addresses these issues without violation of the NAP. By doing so I logically conclude that anarchism is manifestly inferior to minarchism. Unfortunately, you did not truly refute my position and you leave my contention virtually unscathed. 3) I am not quite certain where to begin addressing your third point of refutation. For one, your thinking seems more utopian and idealistic than practical. I expressed my concerns about the possible dangers associated with privatizing these services. You respond with "the public fire department could either help only those who provide money..." This is my exact concern and I made detailed notes on exactly why that can be dangerous. It would not be unjust for fire departments to refuse service to civilians who have not paid for it, but it leaves both the civilian and the service provider in a very dangerous position. You have told me that it is moral (and I agree) but you have not provided a solution to this problem. You also make note that civilians donating to these services can keep them operative. This much is true, but there is no promise of any form of willful donations and it is only likely that service providers will look out for their best interests and function primarily to the entities that donate the most to them; this also places civilians in a very dangerous position. Your refutation is mere idealism at best and cannot be logically demonstrated. Again, you fail to properly represent and refute my position, this time by further demonstrating that there is an issue and proposing a utopian scenario in which people willingly participate in donating to public services out of the kindness of their own hearts. My state funding plan covers these problems. Citizens and businesses may withdraw a loan from the government. By paying this back with interest the government collects the means of funding these services and the service providers are eliminated of any functional bias because they do not receive their funding from private entities. This means that nothing is being forced upon anyone and minarchism and anarchism remain equally moral; however, minarchism is more practical and should be preferred to anarchism for that fact. The Impracticality of Anarchism In his rebuttal, my opponent asks a question. "Given that conquerors will eventually desire to take over land, which societal structure provides the better solution?" My answer would be obvious, I would invade an anarchistic society first. It would be far easier to initialize and both societies are equally difficult to control. To begin, it is important to realize that nothing is ever going to serve as an effective deterrent to conquest and there is always the possibility that either system would be abrogated through the same means. Neither system is ever going to be perfect. However, organized militias have always proven to be more effective than their unorganized counterparts. One of the reasons that the United States have never seen defeat in war is because of their superior organization. The opposite goes for France. The reason they have seen total defeat in almost every major war since Napoleon is their lack of organization compared to their opponents. Organization, even a little bit, is going to prove more effective than being unorganized. Organizational superiority is a fact of history and it would require new feats of mental gymnastics to attempt a refutation. Later on in your rebuttal, you do voice an excellent concern, however. You argue that submission to conquest is more likely under the establishment of a minarchistic state. This is true but doesn't take history into consideration. Resistance to authoritarian conquest has always existed. In almost every one of the nations Hitler conquered, France, again, being my example, rebellious factions arose and fought against the occupying establishment. I will concede that anarchists are more likely to view conquerors as illegitimate rules, but this isn't a trait found exclusively among anarchists. Submission to rule is entirely dependent upon the will of a population. If the central authority of a minarchistic nation is defeated, noncompliance can and would likely serve as an effective form of resistance (just like anarchism). Minarchism better defends a population because it uses both the anarchistic methods of resistance to noncompliance and an organized militia. Your refutation is strong but unfortunately, doesn't take every possibility into consideration. I, and many more, still consider minarchism to be a more practically maintained and defended system than total anarchism. Thank you again, Lupricona, for accepting this debate! I eagerly await your opening case. As this is the end of my position I will ask the judges to please vote for the logical choice, Pro. Minarchism is preferable to Anarchism. Thank you.