On balance, Anarchism is More Humanitarian than State Planning

== CLOSING ARGUMENTS == Pro says voting is ultimately a prisoner's dilemma. This is false and Pro did not prove this in any way. There have been extremely close elections throughout history with a margin of victory less than 0.1% [1]. My supposition of a far more direct democracy in much smaller towns negates Pro's contention that democracy is useless. Further, Pro says flippant voting led to philosophies he deems bad, yet once again this ignores the fact that complete anarchy has its problems too. Example: In 1997 Albanian citizens rioted and demanded reimbursement from their gov. Their military lost control; the result was half of Albania falling under the control of rebels and criminal gangs where chaos and violence ensued [2]. So, thus far we see Pro saying my system wouldn't work because "people's votes wouldn't count" which I've refuted, and me saying Pro's system won't work because of problems of concentrated power, and the tendency for people to not act perfectly rational and allow greed to influence their decisions - also unrefuted. Thus so far we have every reason to accept my position over Pro's. Next, Pro continues to assert the possibility that because anarchism worked in the medieval ages well over 1,000 years ago, that it would withstand current standards of we defined and defend property, utilize the economy, etc. However this isn't entirely true since our economy is not only about producing goods and services like in the past, but now includes entire occupations generated around manipulating capital such as wealth via collateral and inferred risk. Pro has not convinced me that his system is still applicable, and if it were (and preferable) then I'm wondering why it has never been successfully enacted in history - including Pro's very own L.M. example (more about that later). Questions about Somalia's stability are still rampant despite Pro's intention to portray it as a perfectly civilized and well off society. Somalia is one of the poorest, most violent, least stable and deadliest countries anywhere on Earth. It suffers from severe hunger, daily violence, and virtually no authority to carry out the kind of policing that could effectively disrupt pirate and other criminal operations [3]. This is the BEST example Pro has continuously cited to base his "humanitarian" system on, while my system can best be demonstrated by Switzerland which has among the best ratings on people's quality of life [4] - far contrary to the conditions that plague Somalia and most would find less than humanitarian. Switzerland and places like it also challenge (negate?) his rash assertion that democracy can never be good or prosperous. Pro writes, "If she were at all familiar with anarchy she wouldn't be pretending she could get away with murder." Unfortunately it's painfully obvious to the readers that people use their wealth, power and prestige to get away with murder all the time -- such as mafioso who are infamous for paying off cops and law enforcement to continue their illegal practices [5]. How this different in any way whatsoever from what would happen in Pro's system? The mobsters would still have all of the legal protections Pro claims they would lose via ostracism, and continue to profit via illegal activity (and getting away with it) as they do now. While it happens today as well, it would be more prevalent in anarchy because the (legal) system would be easier to manipulate through bribes and other immoral practices. This is because there is less likely to find out about the bribe with decentralized and scattered law enforcement that could gain or lose power theoretically on a daily basis under Pro's system. Pro continues, "In anarchy, a very wealthy man who bribes judges also finds that no one wants to deal with him." Once again my last source notes how this is blatantly negated considering thieves bribe judges all the time, and not just one, but multiple judges who seek to specifically become involved in certain cases just to make a profit through dirty practices [6]. So, here we see that Pro's point has again been negated. Ostracism does not work, and both of our systems sustain the same risks. However, my system is preferable because there is less chances of corruption. This is ensured by keeping governments small and local with citizens more actively engaged and aware of political going-ons. If Pro wishes to use ancient examples to prove his system is feasible, then my example of the Greeks absolutely demonstrates the applicability of mine. In response to my example, Pro notes "If 8 in democracy want to make murder legal, they spread costs to the other 2. This socialization of costs makes it easier for them to murder. If 8 in anarchy want to murder, they bear their own costs. It is more expensive and therefore more difficult." I'm not sure how this answers my questions. If murder were legal, what "costs" would people have to bear? There would be no costs and in fact the opposite of costs considering people would not be expected to respond considering murder's legal status. How would it be more expensive to snap someone's neck if we lived in anarchy as opposed to democracy? I'm not sure how this really addresses my concerns at all. Pro contends that "historical cases of anarchy show that laws were enforced through community participation rather than through individual payments." However neither of Pro's presented systems (L.M. or A.S.) was enforced outside of market realms. For instance, Lex Mercatoria "applied merchant customs only if they were 'certain' in nature, consistent with law and in existence since time immemorial" [7]. In other words, this example which Pro clings to and says proves his anarchic system can thrive was only permitted to exist within the confines of a greater, more powerful state. As such, this system does not even prove feasibility without the existence of the state in the first place, considering its customary law was designed with an already more powerful law binding system. Regarding justice, Pro says "No theory of justice validates an aggressive monopoly on law." This is a manipulation of my system considering the people are the ones who control the "monopoly." In both of our systems *the people* determine law. My system does not advocate or encourage random aggression. Considering I advocate a non-aggressive, non-monopolistic system, this point should also be considered negated. Pro advocates for competing government (law firms) whereas I am advocating the same thing except people compete by running for office -- not by letting wealth alone determine who wins authority. Once again the same exact problem of one falling under the authority of those they do not want to be in power is just as possible if not more probably under anarchy. Also, I've negated Pro's point that there is a monopoly on arbitration considering new arbitrators would be determined via election. In Pro's system, citizens would be powerless without wealth, and he hasn't answered how that is humanitarian. Pro acknowledges the necessity of property rights and so do I. His argument that SC is a policy and not a theory of gov. is an abusive argument (made only in the last round) and subsequently I don't have the space to respond. However, I maintain that this has not been a debate about capitalism. By bringing up sweatshops, I proved that people tend to choose what's in their best interest -- not necessarily what they believe is moral. That's it. Conclusion: The only difference between Pro's proposed system and mine is that Pro's system is far more privy to become corrupt and dictated by wealth which I've expressed is anti-humanitarian. Pro never addressed or responded to this issue. Further, I have negated all of his criticisms of my system, though mine of his have either been ignored or insufficient. Sources: http://www.debate.org...