Libertarianism

My opponent obviously does not understand his own resolution: "libertarianism is not beneficial to a society"A society is "a" society. Not "every" society, not "societies".All I had to do was show a single example of a society that CAN benefit from the introduction of Libertarianism. I chose - as an example - the authoritarian state of Orwell's 1984.This does not create a false dichotomy. An authoritarian state is an example of a state without Libertarian principles. Logically, I choose this example over any mixed form, as the benefits of introducing Libertarian ideas into a state will be more evident if they were completely absent before. This is a three-round-debate. We don't have the time to argue hence and forth over which element of success can be attributed to which part of a mixed state.As for the "fictional" part: my opponent used a highly fictional example himself, which I countered with my own. No real state has ever had only four fishermen, twenty fish and the precognition to know prices for fish years ahead. So, my opponent has no right to complain about me using a fictional state as an example. Introducing Libertarianism into a state that is NOT libertarian right now MUST create a fictional model of a state, just like my opponent presents a totally fictional - as not based on fact or observation (see the lack of any sources on his side) - idea of what "will" allegedly happen in a libertarian society. So, his accusations against me are completely unfounded.As for my example: 1984 was NATURALLY not an example for Libertarianism. If it had been, I would not have been able to choose it, as I needed a society devoid of any Libertarian ideas to show what would happen if Libertarianism was introduced. Orwell's intentions of what he wanted to show with his work have no further relevance for what I extended from his work.My opponent however goes against his own definition of "Libertarianism" if he says that my example is not an argument for Libertarianism.He concedes: "the government [...] took away all liberty".He defined: "Libertarianism A set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end."So, if he concedes that the government in my example took away all liberties, then he also concedes that it is by his own definition not libertarian. He has thus accepted my example as valid.Hence by showing that the introduction of Libertarianism into that example improves the state (which I showed by studies on innovation through creativity) I have fulfilled my predefined task - which my opponent never objected: to provide an example how Libertarian ideas can be beneficial to "a society".As for my opponent's example with the fishermen from round 2: he does not defend against my criticism, does not answer my questions. He has completely dropped them, so I consider my rebuttal as conceded by my opponent. My opponent is thus disproved.Now, all that is left for me is to refute his new arguments and show he did not meet his burden of proof.My opponent makes a number of propositions what will allegedly happen in Libertarian societies. He does not back any of this up with any evidence whatsoever. As in the previous rounds, all we have is pure conjecture. My opponent has to provide proof that Libertarianism does not ever, in any way, benefit a society. He doesn't. He makes a few claims, and while I agree that some of these phenomena MIGHT come to pass, I deny that they "WILL" occur in EVERY Libertarian society.And even if they DID, this does not say a lot about the resolution.The resolution states that "libertarianism is not beneficial to a society".But so far, my opponent has only talked about negative effects. In order to prove the lack of a net benefit, he would have to take the benefit into account, too. He doesn't.At this point, the debate is over.For my own entertainment, I will take a closer look at my opponent's attempt at precognition, where he detailed what he believes "will" happen."Maximum prices": This argument does obviously not hold. If the government introduces maximum prices, companies will naturally stop research at a point where they will not be able to refund their costs by selling the finished product. A government cannot possibly calculate how much a medicine has cost a company in research, resources, personnel, logistics etc. In order to determine a maximum price, all companies in the country would have to expose themselves completely to the government for a fair judgement. Nobody would even be able to process that amount of data. And it would mean every company had to reveal any company secret, robbing them of their business and opening the market for piracy. Piracy will lead to bad copies of the original product being produced cheaply, and in the case of medicine this will lead to great health risks. So, this is not an argument against Libertarianism, it is an argument FOR it."Pollution": What my opponent proposes here is well known, but he draws wrong conclusions. In a Libertarian society, lobbyists will not have as great an impact on governments, as governments have less influence on economy. This means that laws can be passed to guarantee the "minimum" - which my opponent has included in his definition of Libertarianism - and this minimum is preserving our environment and preserving resources. Of COURSE a government in a Libertarian society would have to make this mandatory, and it doesn't go against my opponent's definition. If there is no planet Earth left to live on, what would any of us do? So, this surely falls into the minimal action a libertarian government would have to take. But they would do so much more freely. Bribing officials only pays off if the officials have a lot to say, so in a truly libertarian state, corruption would decrease substantially, allowing for the government to be stricter about fewer laws. That's what the "minimum" entails."Bad products": Competing companies will keep the quality of products up. If there are less rules, commercials would be allowed to call competitors out for bad products, all companies would sample and analyze the products of others in order to convince the public that they offer the better product for the same price. Instead of an overburdened government the whole market would regulate the quality of products without an authority overlooking it all."Cartels and monopolies": This is obviously the "appeal to extremes" fallacy. If really not even "anyone" can buy products, the companies will lower the prices, because they would not make any revenue from their products, bleeding themselves to economic death. Nobody would do that. If someone attempts to build a monopoly, some form of competition with an alternative, cheaper way will form and shake up the market. As it happened in the computer industry with Apple.My opponent's argumentation must fail because of one fatal flaw: he reduces Libertarianism to economic influence of the government, in spite of his own definition.So, summarizing:My opponent has offered no proof for any of his propositions. He has introduced and dropped a far-fetched example. He has not refuted a single one of my arguments. None of his arguments remain unrefuted or undisputed.He has thus not met his burden of proof.I thank everybody for taking the time to read this.