Anarchy

1.) Pro describes a vision of society that although well intended, has serious flaws. Pro states... "Some of these people will have access to resources that could be used to produce things that those without the resources need. So if I have access to these resources than I am as much at a disadvantage to my would-be customers as they are to me." This thought statement is false. If you have resources that you would-be customers need then you are at an advantage. Because they need what you have in order to survive. You don't need what they have in order to survive, because you have the resources. Pro states... "So an individual with access to more resources is not necessarily in a position of power in relation to those with less resources as with more resources comes a profit incentive as an ends which one might use their resources as a means." Pro seems to think that just because of a profit incentive their will be fair trade. This is flawed. As humanity has shown humans are run by greed, not fairness. Look at the world around you and my statement proves itself. If I have the resources that you need for survival and you have something I want which is not needed for survival, then I will force you to agree with my terms of the exchange. If the person refuses then obviously he/she will perish from a lack of survival resources. Profit can be gained in many ways, and humans are known to not play fair. Also, if I have the resources for survival and I want power. Who is to stop me? I can offer my resources in exchange for the service other men provide. If given the choice between life or death, men without survival resources will almost always choose to accept the exchange in order to live. This creates workers, soldiers, slaves, etc. In your anarcho-capitalist society, who is to stop me if I have the resources needed for survival? Once this happens, I have the power of an army and the power of resources. With this power I would set the rules and anarcho-capitalism would cease to exist. This scenario has played out the same way many times in the past. My proof? All the kings, queens, and emperors you have ever heard of. They all prove this to be true. 2.) Pro writes... "He writes that tribes of people will necessarily see two things happen. A.-There will naturally be people in the group who are stronger or smarter than others and B.-There will naturally be people who will be willing to submit to the will of these individuals. My opponent claims that this happens in lions and wolves, however should we believe that because some species interact in thi way that all must?" I already explained why this is probable in my previous argument, and my opponent even agrees with me that this probable in his later paragraph, which I will now state... "Even if my opponent is to theorize that only the strongest and smartest would acquire the most property, which is not too improbable.." So Pro agrees with me. Moving on.... "My opponent also makes the mistake of not taking into account the concept of property. An anarcho-capitalist society would most likely follow the first possession theory of property. This means that while intelligence and strength are still important factors in social interactions among groups, would not be as important as the factor of who possesses what resources in an anarchic society." Property or territory is owned by whoever has the power to take it and protect it from being taken. My opponent's "first possession theory" only works efficiently in a fairy tale society, where everyone honors everyone else's wishes. That is not the real world. In the real world, if I want your land... All I have to do is become powerful enough to take it. Then my opponent goes on to state that "individuals with more resources would be forced to cooperate in a reasonably fair manner with those who possess less resources". I don't see how anyone using logic can come to this conclusion. How would individuals with LESS resources force individuals with MORE resources to cooperate? Exactly. They can't. They don't have anything to use as leverage. 3.) First, since we are assuming that the world is in an anarchic state, war would necessarily be much less frequent than it is now. Pro assumes that the entire world is in an anarchic state. There is no reason for this assumption. I never stated any scenario where the world was in an anarchic state, so I don't know how my opponent feels justified in making the grand assumption that I stated as much. Pro's assumption is what forms most of his argument. His argument falls flat in the light of this failed assumption... But I will argue his points anyway. "The individuals or group of individuals who are planning on attacking this society would need to stand to gain more wealth or resources then they might lose." This statement makes no sense. If I am a large empire, and I have much more resources than the smaller society I wish to attack... My empire in totality stands to lose much more wealth and resources than the smaller society if the smaller society somehow wins the war. An large unified force would wage war just to acquire more land, resources, etc. The probability of a win due to size and power, would also be a motivating factor. "A gang of individuals or a corporation would not be able to raise taxes on it's constituents so it must use it's own money to engage in said conflict. This would necessarily keep conflict between parties at a much lower level then they are today." Really? Taxes can be forced, it has been happening for thousands of years. This is a fact. 4.) Pro writes... "One would pay a defense agency .....If a person thinks that their defense agency was wrong in their decision not to get the person who they percieved to be at fault, they might go to a privatized court. These courts would also be motivated by a profit incentive to judge cases in the fairest way possible so as to keep a loyal amount of customers. Courts and defense firms would be motivated by profit to keep a good reputation so as to continue associating with their clients." So my opponent explains a government system that is motivated by profit... Not the rights of the people involved. So power and justice could just be bought and manipulated for profit? If this were to happen, it would just be another form of government like we have today, all my opponent is doing is replacing the local police forces, FBI, US military, etc. with private police forces for profit. This is a power system that is run by wealth (resources) and without one unified force keeping the smaller units in check, the power of one unit in the society could grow until it takes authority over certain actions in the society (monopoly of force). This unit would become the new form of government. Men seek power and influence over their desires and try to increase that power and influence over their desires. The world is not a fairytale of fairness and justice where everyone abides by the rules. What my opponent describes as Anarcho-capitalism... does not seem to fit reality, it reads more like a fantasy. A fantasy where fair trade and a "no aggression policy" are both honored by all men and women in the anarchist society. The world revolves around power. Power is what decides the rules. This is why anarcho-capitalism cannot be sustained.