Voluntarism is Superior to Democracy

In this debate, she has a much more difficult task than I do because she has the BoP to show the superiority of voluntarism, which is an ideal that we haven't seen in practice, whereas I'm defending democracy, which have all seen in a few different varieties, and we know how it works. In this round, I want to put foward several aspects of life that I can't imagine working under such a voluntarism, and I look forward to Pro's explanation of how it would be. Dispute resolutionIf the rules of personhood and property are to be observed, what happens when someone violates them? There would be occasions of clear violation, such as assault and theft, and occasions of genuine disagreement about the rule. For example, if someone's dog runs away and has been missing for several months and ends up killing a sheep. What happens to clarify and enforce the rules? I don't want to preempt Pro's reply to this question by pointing out problems with potential systems of dispute resolution, so I will leave discussion of this until the next round. Children and educationPro compares democracy and NAP and says that they both exclude children and so the difference is trivial. I hope she can explain this idea a bit further. In a democracy, laws and regulations are passed defining children and adults and how particular rules apply to them. It varies by jurisdiction. Under voluntarism, if children are to be excluded from the NAP rule, how is it decided who is a child and who is an adult and how the rules apply? A decision like that implies a decision-making body. Otherwise, people could decide for themselves, but this would create all kinds of problems. For example, imagine a small child who keeps running away from her mother in a shopping mall. The mother could fear for her safety and strap her into the pusher to prevent her from running away. Depending on how the child is defined, this could be seen as legitimate parenting or a violation of personhood. Any bystander who sees it as a violation might be justified in intervening to allow the small child to run away. A second, similar issue relates to education. According to voluntarism, parents should not be in any way compelled to educate their children or even take them to the park. This means that children could grow up unable to read or write, and at a major disadvantage in terms of getting by in the world. It seems unfair that this should happen to them. PersonhoodWith children, in a democracy, we usually have regulations based on age to separate children from adults in particular domains. When it comes to adults with impaired capacities, the distinction is a lot less obvious. I can imagine that there would be a rule of self- and other defense, but many decisions made in a caring context do not fall neatly into these categories. For example, is it reasonable for a carer to prevent the brain-damaged 22-year-old from going out on the street, which is what he wants to do, because he keeps walking onto the road without looking, which is dangerous? Is the danger enough, when you consider that almost everything we do carries a risk of danger. Even taking him in the car to visit a friend is potentially dangerous. Similarly, is it reasonable for the mother in the shopping mall to strap her daughter into the pusher because she wants to look at shoes and she can't if she has to watch where the toddler is running all the time? Everyday human interaction can't always be broken down into individual person units as voluntarism implies. We function as groups and in symbiotic relationships, and in caring relationships where both parties to the relationship need to be considered, and where people do need to interfere with other people's rights. In a democracy, we deal with this problem by deeming some people to have rights and others not - most obviously, children not, and have people appointed as guardians for those that don't have full rights. There are regulations about this. A person can't just unilaterally decide to be the guardian for another person. I'm not sure how this would be managed under a voluntarism system. It seems outrageous that people could unilaterally decide to appoint themselves guardians of others, and certainly it would be a violation of personhood. On the other hand, would there be rules to restrict it, and if so, how would those rules be drafted? Common propertyIn the same way that people cannot always be neatly separated into units, nor can property. For example, smoking cigarettes, keeping cattle (CO2 emissions), flying a plane are all actions that may negatively affect the common environment or people's health. Often, it's impracticable to demonstrate or quantify the exact damage. We know that CO2 emissions are almost certainly related to global warming, and that global warming will result in rising sea levels, among other changes, that will destroy the homes of people in poor, low-lying countries, such as in the Pacific Islands or in Bangladesh. Under voluntarism, presumably then, any act of CO2 emmission must be balanced with an act of planting trees, or whatever, but given that the exact damage or even the exact emissions are impossible to quantify, these required balances are are enormously complicated and probably impossible for most people to perform. Presumably, there would be no such thing as public land under voluntarism. All beaches, parks and forrests would become private, and could be claimed for building or for private enjoyment. This would exclude poor people from beaches, ex-national parks, and ex-public space, which seems a definite disadvantage when compared to democracy which can protect such spaces for everyone. Economic intimidation and welfareIf someone is starving, then offering them money to do something is just as coercive as holding a gun to their head. If they say no in either case, they will die and/or their children will die. Under voluntarism, there is no measure to balance the horrible coercive power of unequal property and wealth. For someone to have real freedom to say yes or no, they need to have access to a basic living allowance, which would provide them and their families with enough to eat, fresh water, shelter, and basic health care. Voluntarism does not provide this sort of thing for people. Democracy recognizes a basic social responsibility for others. It shouldn't be that one person has fifty cars, seven mansions, etc. , while down the street people can't afford to eat that day. We all share the same environment, and any wealth was extracted from that environment using the country's resources and labor. About democracyIt's true that democracy can be characterized as the tyranny of the majority when considering a single issue or a single vote. However, everybody is in the minority in some aspect of their lives. It's impossible to be with the majority on every single piece of legislation. Apart from anything else, you can only live in one (or maybe two) places at once, and so the majority will be against your specific zone of habitation. Also, people can't predict their futures, so there is always the fear of ending up in the minority in new ways. For these reasons, people are motivated to create fair and equal laws. We can see that in the advocacy and their associated rhetoric for laws such as the "fair housing act" (1), ADA "equal opportunity for people with disabilities" (2), and concerns about "equal pay"(3). Pro writes that "in addition to being uninformed and irrational, voters also have a huge bias to advance their own interests. " I find this statement confusing, because voters are informed about their own interests, and yet she characterizes them as uninformed. She also complains that people are uneducated, when under voluntarism, public education would be abolished. Further, nobody has total knowledge and so everyone can be described as uninformed in some way. Pro argues that people can cooperate to form groups and make decisions about trade and community matters. I don't understand how she trusts us to do that competently, and yet does not trust us to vote competently. I hope she can explain the difference a bit more in the next round. efficiencyDemocracy is time-consuming and annoying, it's true, but so is cleaning out the fridge. We shouldn't base our judgment of political systems on how fun and easy they are, but rather on the outcomes. taxesPro has characterized taxes as theft. I suppose that's true if you believe that property belongs absolutely to the person who happens to have hold of it at a particular moment. However, I don't see why we should respect the rights of a small minority to own and control the majority of a countries wealth, especially if the majority is living in poverty and powerlessness. Inequality is socially corrosive (4). A system that protects property rights so absolutely defends inequality. You can say that taxes steal from the rich to give to the poor, or you can use nicer language and say that they help to create social equality. It's the same thing. Ideally, democracy helps to protect vulnerable people from the worst outcomes of poverty, inequality and powerlessness. tl;drRights to property and rights to person are not independent. The more resources you have, the better your health and the longer you live (6). Therefore, if we support inequality, we are supporting the personal rights of some people over others. The right to life is more important than the right to property, and that is why voluntarism doesn't work. (1) . http://www.justice.gov...(2) . http://www.ada.gov...(3) . http://www.nwlc.org...(4) . https://www.ted.com...(5) . http://siteresources.worldbank.org...(6) . http://www.nber.org...