Anarchism is incompatible with the principle of individual rights

Rules of the Debate Pro claims to be attacking anarchism, particularly anarcho capitalism. The wikipedia article writes that anarcho capitalism "advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market." Anarcho Capitalist theorist Murray Rothbard continues: "The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body." I) Individual Rights His definition of individual rights is totally incoherent. If I have a right to my own body, I deny others the right to my body. Therefore, according to his definition of individual rights, self ownership is not a right. This is probably not what Pro meant, but his grammar is really bad. His formulation implicitly denies the right to anything mutually exclusive. This is not how anarchist theorists, or anyone else with a brain, defines rights. To make this debate really clear, simply consider the non-aggression axiom put forward by anarcho-capitalists. It is the individual right not to be attacked. I ONLY have to focus on this right because it is the fundamental axiom of anarcho capitalist rights theory (see Rothbard quote). a) Homesteading and Trading Well, Pro is actually wrong about homesteading. He's subscribing to the mystical transformation theory of ownership. But again, it doesn't matter. It is sufficient to only consider self ownership. b) Violations Again, it doesn't matter. As long as it is possible to violate self ownership, we don't have to figure out when exactly that happens. II) The Rights of Third Parties Pro says a lot more really dumb stuff... His justification for a "right to intervene" is on the basis that rights wouldn't mean anything without it. First, this is circular because he's saying that rights require rights. Second, he's making an argument from convenience, which only establishes practicality, not the existence of a right. Pro's derp doesn't matter though because just intervention is an extension of self ownership. It is not a right in itself. Pro's reasoning is just mind numbingly stupid. III) The Monopoly Pro introduces a hypothetical where there is a dispute about rights. This is a VIOLATION of what Pro wrote in the OP: "This is a debate on principles, not “real-world” applicability." So he's basically saying: "In real life, there might be a problem". But he does not engage the principle of individual rights or anarchism anywhere. He's just failed the debate. I also challenge his monopoly claim. He thinks that because one interpretation must prevail in each isolated case it means that a judge has a society-wide monopoly on rights. This is really obviously false. A conflict between Ann and Bob can be resolved by Craig today, and Danny tomorrow. Earl and Frank can be judged by George while Harry arbitrates a different dispute next door, etc... Reebok does not have a monopoly just because only one pair of shoes can be worn at once. Similarly, just because one judge's interpretation must prevail in an individual conflict does not mean it has to be the same judge every time or that everyone in society must use that judge. *breath* Since this is Pro's lynchpin, I'm going to point out that there was no society-wide monopolist in icelandic polycentric law [1]. Pro said there aren't supposed to be any outside sources, but he's making a claim about real life. You can ignore it if you want. It proves that polycentric law is possible. But so what if people try to enforce different concepts of rights? a) There can still be an underlying objective theory of rights. It doesn't matter if no one follows them because the PRINCIPLE of individual rights remains intact. b) Disagreements in rights are no more *intrinsically* problematic than disagreements in science or grammar. We don't need rights-monopoly any more than we need a science or grammar monopoly. c) Establishing a monopolist on rights does not guarantee that the correct version of rights will be enforced. In fact, the people heading the monopoly have no incentive to implement the correct version of rights. d) Forcing everyone to submit to the interpretation a central authority is itself a violation of individual rights. e) If the government is made up of more than 1 person, disputes among government agents can arise. Because government agents are in a state of anarchy with respect to each other, they face the same "problems". IV) The Government His definition of government is needlessly vague because it relies on unspecified boundaries contained in the word "society". Where does "society" begin and end? It also does not allow him to distinguish ONLY states, since Blizzard has a monopoly on arbitration in World of Warcraft disputes, Juggle has a monopoly on arbitrating DDO disputes, the Captain has a right to judge disputes on his ship, etc. So like most statists, he chooses a definition of states that also applies to private voluntary organizations. A better definition is "an aggressive monopoly on final dispute resolution". This definition successfully identifies all entities called states without also including private clubs. There are also good theoretical reasons why voluntary monopolists, like World of Warcraft, would behave differently from aggressive monopolists. V) Anarchism So he's really going to rely on his monopoly point. Fine. I reiterate: intervention in a conflict is isolated to that conflict alone. It is not a society-wide monopoly claim. But Pro's whole argument has been to say "What if <this particular circumstance>?" Anarcho-capitalism isn't a specific system. Rights don't HAVE to be enforced by third parties. Individuals do not even have an obligation to assert their own rights. Anarcho-capitalism is a philosophy of what we MUST NOT DO. We must not attack innocent people. That is all. If we have different interpretations of what "innocent" means, then we have a problem. But just because we have a problem does not mean we get to set up an institution which systematically violates everyone's right to free association. IV) The Fundamental Question of Politics Pro thinks that anarchism is the right of anyone to enforce anything. This is true in a physical sense. People CAN do whatever. States CAN ALSO do whatever. Physical possibility is not relevant to political philosophy. Sorry. Pro thinks the fundamental question of politics is "what should we enforce?". This is actually one of the questions MORALITY asks. To turn it on him, morality implies that "anyone" can do "anything". If it is moral for me to stop a mugger, it is moral for anyone else. That's what universal ethics means... This is totally uncontroversial. Pro's whole hangup is a horribad argument that because one person must judge in one case, that same person must judge in all society's cases. This is not a disagreement with the principle of anarcho-capitalism, which is that you don't attack innocent people. It's pretty simple.