Anarchy is Detrimental to Freedom and the Growth of Society

Extending the Time Frame The below sentence is one of the most important point in Con’s argument, so I will address this first. “Each of these points is easily addressed by extending the time frame with which a particular area becomes anarchistic.” That is not true. Point A is becomes stronger by extending the time frame, as the country will be split into smaller and smaller factions. Point B will be stronger over time if Point A holds true. The smaller regions will have a smaller military. If private companies control the military, how can the issue of the accountability of private industries (Point C) be solved over time? There is no one to hold the industries accountable. Point D will also not be solved over time, given Con’s position of allowing companies to own the military. Point E (with regards to investment) will become stronger since Point A and Point B become stronger. With regards to currency depreciation and the issue with fiat currency though, Con is correct in pointing out that this problem can be solved over time. Point F will also become stronger (if not weaker). Since companies control the military (as Con suggests) they can easily bend the rules of the community for their own benefit, and inequality will rise over the years. Point G will also arguably be stronger. As time passes, there would be more monopolies. Con must show how extending the time frame would refute Points A-G. As my opponent has failed to do so, the claim does not stand (Except for part of Point E). Further Rebuttals Point A The question is not whether an individual can work well with another individual, but whether a community can work well with another community. A community could easily become self-sufficient. Let’s assume there were two cities: City A and City B. City A is rich, and City B is poor. The people of A would not likely want to associate/help the citizens of B. Point B “As I mentioned, some public services will be pushed into private industry. One such service is military” Arguably even more detrimental to freedom than having a small military. If a private industry controls the military, the industry would dictate everything in the region. “The cost of an invasion would surely exceed the financial gain, thus rendering the invasion entirely counter-productive” This is not true. The small area may be rich in natural resources or some other strategic value. Throughout history, small areas have been often invaded. In recent times, Luxembourg was invaded by Nazi Germany. Singapore was occupied by Japan. In medieval times, Jerusalum was often invaded. “If the anarchist community falls within the region of a State, the anarchists are protected anyway.” Most likely the anarchist community will not be treated in the same as the original citizens of the state. They probably would be heavily taxed. They probably wouldn’t be able to vote. The invading army could occupy the conquered region. In worst cases, war crimes could be committed on its inhabitants. The inhabitants would live in fear, as the conquerers could essentially do anything to them. This is detrimental to the “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Point C As defined by dictionary.com, a corporation is defined as “an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members”[1]. As recognized by my opponent in R1, laws exist in anarchies, therefore corporations exist. Even if my opponent was correct, I could simply restate my argument as: in an anarchy, there is no regulation of private industries (This is the term used by Con). No regulation of some industries, such as banking, will prove to be directly detrimental to the “pursuit of happiness” of individuals, as shown in the 2008 financial crisis. Point D “A cost-benefit analysis will show that it is preferable to have the rich receive lenient treatment than to have the State entirely exempt from the law.” My opponent states that this is “the position we are in currently”. The question is whether anarchy is detrimental to freedom and growth of society, not that the State is detrimental to freedom. However, I will still address this point. While it is true that the rich can “buy out their way of situations”, they are not technically “above law”. Basically, they can try to find loopholes in the law, but they cannot break the law. In Con’s proposed system, industries are free to break the law, as they would control the military and the police force. Governments today are undoubtedly more tolerant to the rich, but they still crack down on them. For instance, Bernard Ebbers of WorldCom was sentenced to 25 years in jail by a federal court[2]. This is better than not cracking down them at all, which would happen in Con’s anarchy. Contrary to Con’s suggestion, the State is not exempt from the law. For instance, in a democratic country, we can impeach the president. Additionally, the people can elect the government. The people can’t elect the head of the private industries, which will control the military as in Con’s anarchy. In this case, it would be the private industries and wealthy elite that is exempt from the law. Con’s anarchy would invest the rich and the wealth with much power. This would cause harm to lower and middle class citizens. Point E “C1 is in regards to military security. Investors are more concerned with financial security”. Investors are mainly concerned with financial security, but they are still concerned with military security, as Con admits in the statement above (“more concerned” implies that investors are “still concerned” with military security, which is related to financial security). Additionally, investors would not want to invest/run a company in a region that has a potential to secede (Point A). For instance, when Quebec wished to secede from Canada, the private industries in Montreal migrated to Toronto. The lack of investment and companies would directly decrease the living standards of people in the region. Point F Con has made an incorrect assumption about human nature in this point. Con is assuming that most people tilt towards the altruistic side of things. “If the issue is public funding, charities will do just as well, if not better, than taxes, especially when people are getting all of the money they worked to earn.” Charities can’t raise as much money as taxes. Additionally, 97% of the money an individual gives to charity never gets into the hands of people that need it[3]. Anarchies wouldn’t be able to mitigate the harsh conditions inflicted on the country’s poor, and would be therefore detrimental to their “pursuit of happiness”. Point G “In relation to monopolies and buyouts, the fact that a monopoly ‘can’ exploit workers does not then mean they will exploit workers.” History has proven time after time that monopolies will abuse their powers (Modern economic theory also supports this). Rational human beings will want to maximize their profits. The exploitation would be detrimental to the people’s pursuit of happiness. Additionally, monopolies also decreases competition and the efficiency of the market. This would slow down society’s growth[4]. “If they are, indeed, being exploited, the suit should go through, assuming it was class action” The suit will most likely not go through. As the rich companies can hire better lawyers. Additionally, as Con suggested, the rich companies would support the military, therefore these companies would essentially be above the law. [1] https://www.google.ca... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://thetruthwins.com... [4] https://www.inkling.com...