Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchist pt.2

Argument I My opponent's arguments sound like a concession. I argued in my first argument that anarchism is simply anti-government and not completely anti-hierarchical. Anarchy contains the suffix -archy, which is defined as "form of government or rule. " The prefix an- means that the suffix is made the opposite of its definition. Therefore, anarchy is defined as being against government and rule. One of the definitions of government is, "A group of people who hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory. " In other words, government could be considered forceable hierarchy. This is contrary to anarchism, because it involves force. [1][2] However, the important thing to take away from that is the use of force. Anarchism does not so much argue against hierarchy so much as it argues against forcable hierarchy (for example, government). "Anarchists are not opposed to leaders and leadership, nor to law and laws " What anarchists oppose is that certain leaders should have a special privilege to use force, a privilege to coerce, to compel others to submit to their leadership, to use force in ways that would be impermissible for other people to use force. "[3] Argument II This argument is essentially commits the Ad Populum fallacy. Just because a lot of anarchists don't believe that capitalism can be compatible with anarchism doesn't mean that the two can't be. But the quotes do bring up a problem " supposed class hierarchy and unequalization of capital among people. I will refute the arguments themselves in the next two points. I just wanted to call out the fallacy here. Argument III I believe what she meant by "man-made law" is government-created law (see the quote I provided above). Everyone has the right to defend themselves, and out of this should come contracts between all people that set down laws protecting that right. "According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. " Natural law is not man-made law, and private law is compatible with anarchism because it is not established by force, but rather by cooperation between all people. ". .. there is reason to expect a system in which legal rules are generated by firms competing in a private market to produce efficient rules. Richard Posner has argued that there is considerable empirical evidence to suggest that the actual rules of anglo-american common law are efficient. " Law does not require government, and an anarchist society can and should have a form of law. [4][5] Argument IV Capitalist wage labor is far from slavery. Muray Rothbard made an extension of his right to surival argument (given in round 2) about labor is not slavery. "The starting point of Rothbard"s argumentation is every man"s sovereign and full right to himself and his labor. This is the position of property creation shared by both socialists and classical liberals, and is also the shared position of anarchists of different colors. " In capitalism, you get to choose where you work. Therefore, the capitalist labor system hardly seems like slavery. [6] Next, there is no set "working class" and "capitalist class". In fact, there is no class dichotomy to begin with, as everyone is capitalist. There is nothing stopping an employee from becoming an employer, and vice versa. Even to our own flawed capitalist system, people go into and out of the wealthiest incomes all the time. There is no exploitation in anarcho-capitalism because it is completely voluntary, and there is no cahance to make the system exploitive because there is no government (that's the major misconception about capitalism " judging capitalism's actions in tandem with the state's, instead of a society where a state doesn't exist). In other words, the class "system" is liquid, and there is no difference between the two instead of an arbitrary definition of wealth. Argument V My opponent brings up an interesting quote from Murray Rothbard that I found as I was researching my round 2 argument. I did make me rethink my position for a little bit, but I did some research, and found out that he made that article before he became an anarcho-capitalist himself. Furhter, he even wrote in that same article that: We are left to conclude that the pure libertarian must advocate a society where an individual may voluntarily support none or any police or judicial agency that he deems to be efficient and worthy of his custom. It was clear he was against the idea of a state at that time, but he didn't like the stigmatism that the term "anarchy" was used. Regardless, he later became an anarcho-capitalist. And also regardless, this isn't an argument so much against anarcho-capitalism not being anarchism, as the full system was developed later. [7][8] Argument VI My opponent's argument rests on another misconception of capitalism " that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The idea that the poor have gotten poorer is nothing short of absolutely false. Let's look at health. Infant morality, maternal mortality, and death from infectious disease have plummeted to miniscule fractions of what they used to be a couple hundred years ago. Life expectancy, health itself, and the effectiveness of hospitals have skyrocketed. Life expectancy has quadrupled since ancient times, tripled since medieval times, and doubled since the start of the 20th century. Or how about wealth? 100 years ago, people washed their own clothes, built their own houses, and mostly practiced agriculture. Just 250 years ago, people made just about everything they needed. But now, factories are becoming increasingly mechanized, freeing people up to focus more on high-skill professions with increased leisure time. Better quality products, and most importantly, virtually unlimited access to information has been caused by the capitalist system. Now sure, the pot of the rich has definitely increased, but who really cares if the pot of the people who are not rich increases as well? "If we look upon the history of the world, and especially upon the history of England since 1865, we realize that Marx was wrong in every respect. There is no Western, capitalistic country in which the conditions of the masses have not improved in an unprecedented way. All these improvements of the last 80 or 90 years were made in spite of the prognostications of Karl Marx. For the Marxian socialists believed that the conditions of the workers could never be ameliorated. They followed a false theory, the famous "iron law of wages - the law which stated that a worker's wages, under capitalism, would not exceed the amount he needed to sustain his life for service to the enterprise. "[9] Even so, the wealth of the rich is not limitless, and the wealth growth of the rich is not as large as is commonly thought. "In his 2007 book, A Farewell to Alms, economic historian Gregory Clark points out that if you look at real returns to land (rental rates), they have fluctuated but remain virtually unchanged. The same holds true for capital (interest rates). Real wages for unskilled workers, meanwhile, have exploded. "[10] As for my opponent's third component, I will simply reiterate that in anarcho-capitalism, there is no class conflict. The lower-wealth have just as much freedom to gain wealth as the higher-wealth people have the freedom to lose it. Further, a few people owning the means of production is not bad in anarcho-capitalism, because businesses and employers act at the behest of consumers and employees. As Milton Friedman said: A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both Conclusion Capitalism, at least in the context of anarcho-capitalism, is compatible with anarchism. It place value on freedom and voluntary actions, both of which are the main precepts of anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is only incompatible with the flawed definition of anarchism out forth by anarcho-communists, and more broadly, capitalism does fit the definition. How else could anarcho-christianity ( a system based on only the leadership of God) or anarcho-socialism (an economic system that puts the means of production into the hands of the "state") exist without a little tweaking of the definitions? Capitalism can fit with anarchism, and anarcho-capitalism is itself compatible with anarchism. Sources [1]: . http://en.wiktionary.org... [2]: . http://en.wiktionary.org... [3]: . http://jim.com... [4]: . https://www.princeton.edu... [5]: . http://www.daviddfriedman.com... [6]: . http://www.anarchism.net... [7]: . http://archive.freecapitalists.org... [8]: . http://mises.org... [9]: . http://mises.org... [10]: . http://mises.org...