On balance, Anarchism is More Humanitarian than State Planning

[NEG CASE] Neg says SC should be democratic with education remedying any problems. I'll argue that even if people are informed, SC is inferior to anarchy. 1) Rational Irrationality The chance that an individual's vote will decide an election are low (1), (2). If a voter studies to find the best policies they are wasting time. Patri Friedman: "in a 300,000,000 person Prisoner's Dilemma game, I think defection makes a lot of sense!" Everyone realizes that serious voting is a poor deal and votes irrationally. At best, this results in a lackluster state. More likely, special interests lobby hard against voter apathy and SC becomes oppressive corporatism. In fact, democratic theory is essentially a Maoist "leap forward". Each individual cultivates his own opinions. There is no division of labor or specialization in this process. 2) The Myth of Limited Government Hoppe: "[The State] is the ultimate arbiter in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself, and it allows no appeal above and beyond itself.". Democratic majorities serves as their own judge, hence no bill of rights or constitution can restrain state power. Indeed, democracy popularized "Unconditional Surrender", "Total War", and other morally fraught philosophies in public policy (3). The incentives of a monopoly legal system are so perverse that hoping for a benign outcome is Utopian. 3) Aff Permutation It is unclear why SC has to be aggressive. I can simply run a variant of her ideal system by asking people to voluntarily join a democratic partnership. If others live in peace and wish no part, leave them be. The non-state SC is superior because it avoids many of the incentive problems in 2) and is consistent with my contentions. 4) Economy Neg wants to guide the invisible hand through unspecified regulations. Why are libertarian rights are insufficient to this end? Government simply crowds out the private sector (4) (5) (6). The benefits of state involvement in the internet are unclear. Many private internet prototypes exist(ed) (7) (8). Summary) Neg did exactly what I warned her not to do in the David Friedman quote. She assumed the political apparatus will automatically work the way she's drafted it. While it looks good on the surface, the actual incentives of SC lead to failure. [AFF CASE] C1) Neg thinks people have free trade under SC. First, taxes abridge free trade because labor is confiscated. Second, security markets are abridged because the state is a monopoly on final arbitration. States are bad for "customers" like any other monopoly: high prices, poor service. In markets, division of labor and competition produce higher standards of living. A market in all services (anarchy) is taking the benefit of trade to its highest level. Neg writes that anarchy could result in a monopoly. Without aggressive intervention, abusive monopolies are extremely unlikely. Even if only one road or electric line is being built, consumer representatives can still choose between firms who bid competitively on the contract. This is an extremely large topic so I'll block further discussion by saying that even if monopoly were possible, the judge still takes pascal's wager (9) and votes for anarchy. Natural monopolies are at least not aggressive monopolies (states). C2) Neg says the Law Merchant may have had equality problems. Regardless, the LM was superior to contemporary state law. If you follow her citation, you'll see many modern uses of LM. See the "international and common law" tab downwards. Anglo Saxon Law is old, but its crime prevention was more sophisticated than anything we see now (10). Our readers might laugh when they realize they'd rather be living under ASL than USA criminal justice. Notwithstanding, why can't ASL evolve? The not-so-wild west is an example of more recent spontaneous law. Powell's paper shows that ancient customary law provides the majority of order in modern Somalia. Technology shines favorably on a modern anarchy since the primary problems these systems faced were informational. Neg wants to know how non-aggressive law will work. I don't understand why my examples aren't enough. Anarchic legal systems were complex and diverse. I want them to be complex and diverse because I don't think we've found the best rules*. What counts are incentives. Practicalities are trivial. *Not a concession. We know some rules don't work; see my criticism of SC. Neg worries private law firms are beholden only to their customers. In SC, the state is the majority. No organization answers to an objective code of law. Aggression is more likely under SC because the majority can spread costs to minorities while private firms bear their own costs. My citations show anarchic cooperation rather than mob exploitation. If anarchy appears majoritarian it is because people agree on so many laws. If neg and I have a disagreement and call up their police agencies, then what? Fighting is expensive. They choose diplomacy. It differs from state police because consumers can choose between protectors. For reputation effects, enforcement is unlikely to act without the blessing of respected judicial opinion. I actually think it would be better to simply purchase insurance against injury and let insurance firms resolve disputes peacefully. The check is insurance companies failing their obligations lose business. Neg thinks that non-unanimous oppression of murderers is statism, but the agreed definition of aggression depends on libertarian rights. If anarchists use violence against a murderer they are not attacking an innocent person. I also already explained why unanimity doesn't matter. People can debate about rights and still live in anarchy. How would law emerge? Well it emerged out of custom in most cases. The wild west source showed how private law emerged out of necessity. Again, many possibilities. The nuts and bolts don't matter. Incentives matter. When you DO harm others, it runs counter to economic incentives. Aggression still happens under anarchy but there is economic incentive to find peace. See the pos/neg feedback loops of trade/crime. My citations show people have established peace in anarchy many times. C3) Democracies have a pretty bad track record on peace as explained in critique of SC. Peace is more likely under anarchy because actors bear their own costs/opportunity costs. You can spend billions on war OR trade and grow rich together. States spread the cost of war, reducing incentives towards peace. Justice can't be established through states because aggression is unjust. Full self ownership and private property are incompatible with statism. Libertarian rights require anarchy. C4) Extend. Anarchy has good long term stability. Conclusion) Neg concedes you can have order in anarchy, and should now understand why I prefer it over a state. She is pessimistic because my examples of anarchy are old. I am optimistic because communication, information, and security costs are approaching nil. Additionally, the ridiculous amount of modern trade interdependence is the strongest peaceful force I can think of. It should be let work to the fullest extent. (1)http://www.stat.columbia.edu... (2)http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com... (3)http://mises.org... (4)http://en.wikipedia.org... (5)http://blog.heritage.org... (6)http://www.people.hbs.edu... (7)http://www.isoc.org... (8)http://www.zdnet.com... (9) http://en.wikipedia.org... (10) http://osf1.gmu.edu...