Anarchy

I will try to make my responses short and sweet. This will help with reader interest levels. P1 - First, Pro states that I said all people were "dirt poor peasants". This is a grand assumption and quite frankly, a low blow. I described a scenario that is very probable to take place in a scenario where the minority controls the majority of resources of the majority. Now, in this scenario. .. A few basic things can happen. 1. ) The controller of the resources can play fair and give everyone an equal share of resources out of it's personal stock. 2. ) The controller can hire people to work for the resources directly. 3. ) The controller can trade fairly with the majority. 4. ) The controller can horde the resources and give nothing. As you can see, the controller of the resources directly controls the outcome of the situation because it has what the majority needs. The out come of how this plays out depends on how morally good or evil the controller might be. To think that there would never be an evil person in this society who has control over others is a hopeful dream, but falls short from reality. Besides as my opponent goes on in his scenario. .. You can start to see him talk of even more structure in the face of the problems (forming labor unions). Facing the inevitable problems that would naturally arise in an An-Cap society, a basic government structure would arise. Also, my opponent belittles my understanding of government in arrogance. I understand government for what it is. .. A certain framework of order and authority that deals with certain criteria. Government is just the name we put on these specific structures. You can form a new kind of structure that deals with the same things and it will just be another form of government, but this would not be anarchy. Sorry. P2 - My opponent writes. .. "We must also remember that in an anarcho-capitalist society, individuals would have the option of buying into a private defense agency. This would be completely voluntary, which is what makes it different from a government. If you come and rob me and I have bought into this defense agency I may seek aggressive action against you. If you have bought into your own defense agency you would most likely be in a breach of contract and thus necessarily vulnerable to aggressive retaliatory action taken against you. If you make a habit out of this action, much like an insurance agency, you might be dropped and thus open to private aggressive action being taken against you. " This scenario that is painted by my opponent proves my point exactly. 1. ) Would be a breach of contract for creating a defense agency? Breach what contract? How do you take my freedom away to build a defense agency? And why would I sign such a contract? 2. ) If a man has the wealth, he could do this regardless. Yes, their would be aggressive force involved on both sides. This aggressive force is what we call war. After the war is concluded, the power that survives will maintain control and authority over the others. This would scenario would end An-Cap society very quickly. 3. ) So if someone does something you don't like. .. You can just hire a private defense force to go do your bidding? Sounds like a structure with cracks in it, waiting ti be filled with corruption. P3 - In this point, my opponent accusations towards me in stating that I am making "wild scenarios". 1. ) How are my scenarios "wild". They have played out almost nonstop since human civilization has been in existence. 2. ) There will always be those with more power and control than others. 3. ) My opponent writes. .. "It would be like the entire U. S. government fighting a mouse for a small piece of cheese. The government wants that cheese and so does the mouse then what does the government possibly have to gain from wasting man and firepower trying to obtain this cheese when they can simply buy a pound of it at the local supermarket for $3.25? " My opponent falls short here. The U. S. Government would just step on the mouse if it wanted the cheese, and then add the cheese to it's collection. The U. S. Government would hardly use any energy during this transaction. We are talking about a larger force taking resources from a smaller force, not buying resources from a local supermarket. P4 - My opponent spirals way off topic here. .. But I will try to direct us back on course. My opponent writes. .. "Central authority vs. Multiple systems of authority". This is the main point of argument here and this is where I will make my argument. My opponent is obviously for "multiple systems of authority". 1. ) Different systems = Different Leaders = Different moral code = Different systems of authority 2. ) When these different systems of authority decide to wage war on one another, for whatever reasons it might be. .. Allies will arise. Enemies will show themselves. The entire system of order which you are trying to push off as "not being a government" will crumble. It will crumble because there isn't a central force of authority to hold it together. Without out a central force of authority to hold it together it would be utter chaos. Chaos of people with different ideals on how to live and how to make those ideals come true. If these small multiple systems of authority are all that there is to keep "order". .. then chaos is inevitable. Think of it like this. .. . We have 2 systems. .. System A. ) (Central Authority System) On one side you have one big dragon controlling the land, with a bunch of smaller soldier dragons under it's command. This dragon decides what is best for the land through the people's wishes and then defends and enforces the law accordingly. System B. ) (Multiple Authority Systems) On the other side you have no control over the land. Only an endless supply of small to medium sized dragons all striving for control and profit towards defending and enforcing people's personal laws and demands accordingly. Which one do you think would win if they waged war on one another? Which one would bring the most benefit in the most areas of a society? Which one is more sustainable and stable? Which one would ultimately bring more peace and less fear on a daily basis? An-Cap Society doesn't exist because it is not an efficient structure for a society to maintain. It would either collapse from the inside or be defeated from the outside. In the last round I will only be making conclusions, no further arguments. Thank you.