Voluntarism is Superior to Democracy

To begin, Con suggests he has the edge in this debate because voluntarism has not been observed in practice, and we have an idea about how democracy would work. First, 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, 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]. Still, beware of the fallacious argument that suggests because something has not yet been observed that it cannot be done. Before the official role of the state, humanity existed for a long time without the concept of official law; I can provide other examples. And further, Con is correct - we have seen democracy in practice and the horrible effects it can have, as I outlined in the last round. The Role of the StateTo challenge the utility of voluntarism, my opponent presents the issues of dispute resolution, children's rights and education. I would be more than happy to address those issues, and moreover explain why voluntarism presents superior responses. However keep in mind that this debate would be frivolous if we each threw out examples of problematic possibilities. Contrary to popular assumption, voluntarists are NOT utopians. There will be problems and challenging disputes along with aggression; such is life. However, the supposition is that the role of the state on balance does more harm than good, and/or is immoral or unjustified. It's true that children are considered inferior in terms of their capacity to reason and understand basic concepts. Indeed one's ability to reason is what gives us certain rights (like the right to life) in the first place compared to say living animals. Science has clarified an undeveloped brain as partially responsible for physical inhibitions to the decision making process. As such, in democratic societies children are not granted the same rights as (for all intents and purposes) mentally capable adults. It would be reasonable to presume the similar standards would apply under a voluntarist society. The short answer (in consideration of character space) is that voluntarists have addressed the issue of children's rights under anarchy and explained why they are similar to the status quo with slight changes, eg. younger consent laws for specific acts. This is superior to democracy as it recognizes the autonomy of individuals as it pertains to certain decisions, i.e. ones that affect their health and life (such as the refusal to reject cancer treatment). I would implore my opponent to read the following resources if he would like further explanation and critique on the issue of children's rights [3, 4]. If he disagrees with the explanations or would like me to address specific concerns within the context of the debate, I will do so in the next round. On property, Con supposes that proper boundaries cannot be defined under the NAP. That is simply unsupported. Anarcho-capitalists have already outlined non-tangible property rights, and explained why CO2 emissions affect other's right to live free from the aggression of harmful toxins. Air pollution and other types of pollution are considered aggressive, as they infringe upon the property rights others [5].In terms of conflict resolution and law enforcement, some suggestions include - the decriminalization of all non-aggressive crimes, promoting unarmed mediation and intervention teams, restorative justice, community patrols, higher private investment in mental health care, and private institutions of law enforcement that promote accountability [6].Many governments have been used to slaughter their own people (or others) in the name of nationalism, imperialism, racism, religion or other radical propositions. Again, democracy could make all of these things legal and permissible by the state and law enforcement if the majority of the people agree. Con dropped this argument. All you need is a small majority and it would be justifiable. However, the NAP specifically protects against the legal implementation of aggression regardless of motivating factor. The NAP at least forbids state (the most powerful arms) from aggression.In Defense of Democracy Con writes, "If someone is starving, then offering them money to do something is just as coercive as holding a gun to their head." This is a basic appeal to emotion fallacy. One example involves the immediate threat of aggression; the other does not. One implies direct force; the other does not. My opponent suggests that theft and aggression (through democracy) are moral because some people are in bad (poor) conditions. This is a bare assertion that he has not justified with a specific value outside of empathy or guilt. Now, I've argued that democracy is tyranny of the majority. Con says that while true, people have an incentive to create fair and just laws on the basis of self-preservation. While that may also be true, it ignores my arguments from the last round regarding 1) uninformed and ignorant voters, and 2) self-motivated or otherwise selfish voters who justify their immoral acts through mob mentality. These problematic concerns exist despite the reality of an incentive for decency. Many critics of voluntarist societies point out that war and other destruction is inevitable, therefore the state is necessary for defense. But that isn't true. First, people DO have an incentive toward decency and self-preservation by Con's own admission, so there's no reason to assume people would suddenly go buck wild and kill each other and create mayhem without the almighty authority of the state. That would not create a productive or stable environment for anyone. Con did in fact address my point about ignorant voters though and writes, "Voters are informed about their own interests, and yet she characterizes them as uninformed." Under the NAP, people are responsible for choices that have to do with THEMSELVES. Under democracy, people who know absolutely nothing about economics can vote on public policy that could destroy the market, ruin entire economies and significantly infringe on people's property for no other reason than the masses voted a particular way based on their ignorance or bias. Their ignorance can create havoc on the stock market, eliminate the incentives for honest practices (by giving legal consent for banker's carte blanche, for instance) and otherwise have voter's directly impact the livelihood of others through force. Thus I am PRO people making informed decisions about for whom they are most informed: themselves.Con continues, "She also complains that people are uneducated, when under voluntarism, public education would be abolished." Public education would not be MANDATED through compulsory taxation or attendance under voluntarism; however, that does not mean education would be eradicated under voluntarism all together. Education can and would absolutely exist in a voluntary society [7].Con states, "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." This is very simple: I gave the Amish as an example of a group who abides by their own rules and customs within the larger framework of a state. Similarly, Hasidic Jews, Mormons and other groups have done the same, and created their own norms while living under the provisions of the state. Likewise, if the state's authority was limited to protecting people's rights as per the NAP, other groups (like these) could still absolutely come together and voluntarily participate according to their own values. This is far more just than democracy. For example, the issue about whether or not to recognize gay relationships has been about a 50/50 split among American voters. If particular (say religious) groups did not want to recognize gay relationships, they don't have to. But if other groups or individuals want to, they can. Under democracy, values are forced upon people even if they vehemently disagree at a visceral level. For instance very pro-life people are forced to fund some pro-choice causes. Under the NAP, people are free to express their values and not forcibly support others. That means they are not forced to support things they might truly disagree with such as legal murder (i.e. the Holocaust). Con drops my argument on efficiency. My point wasn't just that democracy is entirely inefficient and therefore completely flawed and ill-performing (which he did not refute - and therefore we must accept as true), but also that it promotes popularity among representatives and NOT the intended goals. This promotes cronyism and exploitation of the populace. Extend my arguments about demagogues. On taxes, I wrote that my opponent must justify legal theft or for the forcible seizing of one's earnings or property for no other reason than they have acquired more than others approve of. In response, Con said "I don't see why we should respect the rights of a small minority..." Of course, saying he "doesn't see why" is NOT an argument in response to my question of a required justification for aggressive theft. Please extend this argument / question. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.infoshop.org...[3] http://fair-use.org...[4] http://fair-use.org...[5] http://www.infoshop.org...[6] http://link.springer.com...[7] http://www.wendymcelroy.com...