On balance, Anarchism is More Humanitarian than State Planning

I may have assumed too much intuition of the readers. It is frequent mistake of mine and I apologize. The tags in my case are D=definition, O = observation, C = contention. CLARIFICATIONS) I never rely on self governance in anarchy. Law in anarchy emerges between individuals to resolve conflict. See the Law Merchant and Anglo Saxon Common Law mentioned in round 2. REBUTTAL TO AFF CASE) O1) This is just a standard to establish political pragmatism. She is right that it does not apply to only anarchy. C1) Government is an aggressive monopoly. This by definition means some aspect of free trade is abridged. Under states individuals are captive "consumers", unable to choose between providers of specific services. More free trade means more division of labor, more productivity, and an increase in the standard of living. Anarchism is simply an attempt to have the most free trade. Ceteris parabis this makes it more humanitarian. C2) Neg thinks anarchism won't work because of disohonesty and disagreement. Neg's arguments probably seem convincing to her because she assumes they take place in a backdrop of lawlessness rather than just statelessness. I cited the Law Merchant and Anglo Saxon law as historical examples of how conflicts are resolved peacefully without states, bolstering the theory of C2b that anarchic societies default to peace and order rather than chaos. The theoretical answer validating anarchic order is to realize conflicts are inconvenient to fight out. It makes sense to establish a well known body of law and enforcement mechanisms. So when you run into one of the problems neg brings up, there's already a system in place for dealing with it. The difference between these legal institutions and a State is they aren't formed aggressively. Neg goes on to claim that there is no guarantee to consistent justice in anarchism. I don't think any society can guarantee this because humans have free (enough) will, but likelihoods can be derived by looking at what incentives actors face. I pointed out "it really depends on what people demand and what works. [...]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.". I'll extend to say that the Law Merchant is an example of inconsistent state laws leading to the creation of uniform and just international law. Moreover, it truly is "rich for her to talk about justice when statism relies on coercion of innocent people". Hans Hoppe explains that an "expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms". Neg is also critical that I do not outline exactly how anarchic dispute resolution will work. Well, the Law Merchant was based off ostracism. Anglo-Saxon custom was trial by jury. Order provided in Iceland arose from voluntary traditional law (1). Similarly with Somalia (2). Even in the absence of a common traditional legal system, different ethnic groups forming temporary societies in the not-so-wild west had great success at establishing peace (3) (4). If the neg would like to know the detailed nuts and bolts of anarchism in practice, who will judge, who will pay etc, she should simply follow my citations. There are many workable options. It is incentives that matter, not logistics. Neg also doubts that free trade is self correcting because of the flaws she sees with anarchism, but trade creates strong interdependence. Neg never explains why people in anarchy can't choose prosperity over chaos and death. Indeed, above I offer overwhelming evidence that they successfully don't. Trade is a positive feedback loop. Destruction is a negative feedback loop. 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". O3) This card exists to force us to compare/contrast, rather than just criticize. The neg agreed to outline an alternative society, satisfying this standard. My contentions, not observations, are what provide reasons for the desirability of anarchy. C3) Actually Anglo Saxon law is an attempt to show neg what happens when people disagree. They choose peace over violence. Neg says she "pointed out examples of places that became increasingly violent after lawlessness or the lack of a central government". Somalia, Kosovo and Bosnia... I turned the Somalia example on her in R2. I can research the other two if this becomes a voting issue, but she hasn't sourced or defended these claims. Neg thinks violence is inextricably bound up with anarchy, citing Voltairine de Cleyre's support of the American revolution. I do not claim that Anarchy is always peaceful, but my reasoning and evidence suggests that it tends towards peace. At any rate, self ownership is a good thing. Universal self ownership requires anarchism. C4) Neg's arguments against anarchy are really short term. Its true I need to address all her other objections (see above) but I chose to extend C4 because long term stability is nice. The evidence I've been citing supports this, as well as the self reinforcing nature of trade described above. CONCLUSION THUS FAR) I don't think neg's challenges are serious. She argues in what-ifs and then ignore incentives and the evidence. She has to explain why people in anarchy can't have order even though there is a huge incentive to establish it. Great historical precedent too. My quotes were not arguments from "other anarchists in favor of anarchism". They describe relevant facets of historical anarchies. The Law Merchant excerpt is not some "RA RA anarchy" chant. I brought it up because she was worried that trade law could not be developed and enforced outside the state apparatus. EXPANSION OF THE NEG CASE) I stated twice in R2 and repeat again that I do not assume government actors are all rotten and anarchic actors are all good. I explain above that people do not govern themselves, but that governance arises between individuals. Neg seems to think that unanimity is required for law. Its not. Laws can be effective even if some people don't agree with them. There is still disagreement about law under States. What counts are enforcement mechanisms, many historical examples of which have been cited. Regardless, I have given evidence that there was good regional agreement over law in anarchy. Neg asserts libertarian rights are circular because "who is there to enforce those rights?". Enforcement has been answered, and I don't see why libertarian rights are circular just because they have to be enforced. She'll see see that money, power, and popularity are bigger problems under statism than anarchy. She concludes stating that anarchy has "less stringent rules" than statism. The high degree of law and order in my historical examples speaks to the contrary. On a peripheral note, the neg brought up many points in R2. Some were dropped in R3: Somalia/Kosovo/Bosnia Unprecedence of Anarchy Need for state currency It seems unfair that I had to allocate space and effort in rebuttal if they're just going to be dropped in the next round. I don't know if this is intentional, but many judges find it abusive. The neg also repeatedly claimed that I did not address specific arguments of hers. I believe I did in R2, and now again more directly in R3. If I am mistaken, sh has my sincerest apologies, and I humbly ask that she reiterate more clearly. At any rate, the neg has promised an outline of statist society. The advantages of anarchism will become more clear in juxtaposition. (1) See round 2 for Law Merchant and Anglo Saxon Law citation (2) http://www.observatori.org... (3) http://mises.org... (4) http://mises.org...