Voluntarism vs. Democracy

Thanks, Con.Re: Issues of Comparison I used the term voluntarism in this debate instead of its political equivalent - anarchy - because of the visceral reaction and the emotionally charged reaction the word "anarchy" creates. When people think of anarchy, they think of chaos, mayhem, rampant crime and destruction. However that is because the term has been manipulated since its inception, and has become corrupted based on bad examples, much like feminism. The reality is that many political scientists and theorists have favored voluntarism, eg. the elimination of the state or defined as a state in which simply the NAP is recognized, such as I am advocating in this debate. They have explained at length how such a society would function. Voluntarism has been observed in practice including communities founded by anarchists for social experiments, and successful cooperative businesses. However there are a few instances of mass society "anarchies" that have come about from explicitly anarchist revolutions as well, including the Free Territory of Ukraine and the Shinmin autonomous region in Manchuria [1]. There was also the Paris Commune of 1871, and the observable anarchist movement during the Russian Revolution in 1917 among others [2]. I could cite other examples, but the point is that we have seen successful anarchist and voluntarist societies in practice. It is not just a theory but a legitimate form of government. There are several types of government: anarchist, communist, monarchy, oligarchy, theocracy, constitutional monarchy, constitutional republic, dictatorship, democracy, etc. Each of these types has a distinct way of creating, defining and enforcing the law . A government is the political administration of a country or state [3]. I am advocating for an anarchist or libertarian government, while Con is arguing for a democratic one (eg. the status quo). I clarified the differences of democracy vs. the NAP in the descriptions of R1. I do not advocate a state with no governance (I believe government is necessary for society). Libertarians and anarchists believe the purpose of the state is upholding the NAP that I have described. I am arguing in favor of the libertarian ideology of government, while my opponent is arguing in favor of democracy. Indeed democracy does not only have to refer to a political state, but describes a way in which philosophical affairs are determined. To clarify: I am arguing that protecting and upholding the NAP should be the sole legitimate use and function of government. In layman's terms, I am arguing for libertarianism. My opponent is arguing that the state should be run according to the democratic whims of the people -- that the people should be able to violate the NAP and vote to have the government play an additional role in citizen's affairs, and create other rules and boundaries regarding people's lives, property and the market. Re: Principles that Lead to Democracy Con says that he does not imagine I will be disputing the merit of equality. On the contrary, I completely dispute the utility of presumed or pretend measures of equality. In fact, in the last round I specifically argued why people are inept to make certain decisions on the basis of their inequality and/or ignorance. For example, citizens who are 18 and know little to nothing about the market are NOT equal in terms of value to judge economic policy, as say, someone with a PhD in economics. People are not equal and should not be treated as equal in terms of their ability to make reasonable or moral decisions. That is why people should make their own decisions, and not make decisions regarding policy that permits theft, force and aggression against others as democracy allows. Con adds that because we all have the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, that democracy should prevail. However this is a flawed interpretation and application of these rights. Democracy allows for the legal obliteration of one's right to pursue liberty and happiness. For example, despite the scientific and medicinal validation that smoking pot is less harmful (to the self and society) than drinking alcohol, the latter is legal while marijuana is not. People can have their liberty completely eviscerated and get locked up and thrown in a cage for smoking a plant that makes them happy and is arguably harmless (or at least significantly less harmful than other things that are legal). Under democracy, this illogical inconsistency and arguably tyrannical application of government is legal and valid. In a society that employed the NAP over democracy, people would be allowed to smoke pot if they so choose, so long as they did not infringe on another's person or property. Con adds that in order to secure rights, people must inherently consent to be governed. I'm arguing that in order to protect one's rights, they must consent to not violate the rights of others. The way to do that is to agree to the NAP - to agree that protecting against aggression is the sole legitimate function of the state, and that the state should not be used to aggress (or legalize aggression) against others. On the contrary, democracy allows for the legal implementation of theft and aggression of all kinds if the majority of people consent to it. In 1939 Germany people were persuaded to allow for the legal genocide of Jews - one example of how democracy could eradicate the rights of others at the whim of the majority. Finally on this point, my opponent argues that the NAP is consistent with democracy. This is where I must clarify and repeat the distinctions between the two forms of government: voluntarism vs. democracy, as the two are NOT compatible in application. Indeed Con repeats in the conclusion of his last round that the founding fathers Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill and John Locke would all have supported a voluntarist government. This is an interesting argument, as the founding fathers were infinitely more libertarian than the politicians (and voters) of America today. In fact citing and quoting the founding fathers is one way in which libertarians argue against tyranny thorough democracy, and argue against the policy and political aims of the current times. Here's an example: Today people who are pro-life are often forced to have their tax dollars go toward pro-choice institutions. Even if they fundamentally disagree with this and consider it murder, pro-lifers are forced to fund it [4]. Interestingly, Thomas Jefferson noted this was a terrible idea: "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." And yet that is the status quo. Despite not supporting particular programs or aims, Republicans are forced to pay toward things they might vehemently find immoral and vice versa. For instance many anti-war liberals are fundamentally opposed to overseas conflict, yet their taxes and military are forced to fight. Democracy allows for forced theft and aggression. The NAP does not allow for theft, force and aggression and everyone benefits from that protection. Con notes that Locke writes, "Democracy implies that the people are governed by their voluntary consent... Without the consent of the people there could not be formed a civil society/ community." The thing is that not everybody consents to be oppressed by majority consent, so democracy ignores the rights of the smallest minority: the individual. And further, while I agree that the people could consent to form a civil society by agreeing to have the government uphold certain rights, I believe those rights should be limited to the NAP -- not democratic vote. It is important to note that these two ideologies and governments are not synonymous or compatible. They are in fact mutually exclusive. Democracy allows for taxation; voluntarism pretty much does not. Democracy allows for instigating war; voluntarism does not (without prior aggression or threats).Democracy allows for laws against victimless crimes (eg. prostitution, smoking) and voluntarism does not, etc. Voluntarism maximizes liberty and freedom while protecting individuals from aggression. Democracy permits and arguably encourages aggression.Re: In Defense of Democracy and ConclusionIn the last round, I specified the problems with democracy including: tyranny of the majority, problematic uninformed and biased voters, inefficiency, and inherently flawed incentives regarding mutually exclusive goals of both voters and the politicians who represent them. Con says that tyranny of the majority is addressed through checks and balances. Again, I've argued that those do not account for individual rights. Further checks and balances still allow for atrocities like the ones I've mentioned such as slavery, genocide and theft (eg. socialism). Also, while Con says I have not provided ulterior forms of government for comparison, that is empirically false. I've cited other types of government including voluntarist ones as alternatives.Extend all of my arguments regarding ignorant, uninformed, biased and otherwise malicious voters who through democracy promote confirmation and other cognitive biases in decision making. Con has not disputed any of my claims regarding the incapacity of most voters to make the best decisions. Furthermore, extend all of my arguments on efficiency. Con did not address my points regarding the incentives of politicians and voters to be contrary to each other and individual rights (liberty). Finally extend my arguments on legislating away property (among other) rights.I have submitted my counter to democracy (the NAP) as both a more moral and pragmatic function of government. [1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...