Anarchy is Detrimental to Freedom and the Growth of Society

“In Round 1, I offered arguments for the negation of the resolution. PRO hasn’t provided any direct rebuttals against them. My arguments are, thus, standing.” While it is true that I have not rebutted against Con’s argument number 1, I have rebutted against arguments 2 and 3. Points C and D are directly related to argument 2. Point G is directly related to argument 3. We have been debating these issues for the past few rounds. So Con is incorrect is assuming that arguments 2 and 3 are true for evaluative purposes for the rest of the debate. Point A “preventative of interactive instances (their social status) cause enough issues that two cities will not, under any circumstances, interact” I have not stated “under any circumstances”. I simply stated that communities would not likely be able to interact with another community with differences. “If T is a necessary item, A has no choice but to associate with B.” When the size of a community has grown large enough, community A does not need to associate with community B. For instance, people in Texas do not technically have to associate with people in Maine. Additionally, even if T is a necessary item, A does not need to form a “country” with B. For instance, Singapore imports 90% of its agricultural products. However, it does not form a body with the countries it is trading with[1]. Point B “I don’t see how this is detrimental. This is already the case with state government.” I’ve already argued against this point. To summarize, it is easier to hold the State accountable than to hold industries accountable. Even if people stop giving money to the PMC, the PMC could be supported by the wealthy elite and the holders of monopolies, whose interests would be protected by the PMC. “If natural resources do exist in a particular area, trade is much more efficient than invasion.” This may be true, but historical issues of the occupation of land have shown that humans choose to gain resources/land through violence. From Jerusalem to European Colonialism to WWII, people have tried to take land and resources by force. Additionally, matters of “nationalism” and “land dispute” are evident even to this day. The Arab-Israeli conflict is such an example. There is also the chance that some warmonger like Adolf Hitler or Napoleon to take control of a neighbouring country. “Why is this the “most likely” course of events?” Because history has proven so. The “losers” of a war usually have to pay repercussions and will most likely have less rights. Con states that anarchies could rely on allies for support. However, the allies may not always decide to help the anarchist society. The people will have to always live in fear of this. This would be cause harm to the “pursuit of happiness”. Point C Even if my opponents rebuttal is correct, Con has not addressed the second part of my argument. Therefore it holds. Point D “If the reason for private industry being exempt from the law is that it controls the military, that would make it the case that government is exempt from the law.” As I pointed out earlier, in a democratic country, the people elect the government. So the people can exert a certain amount of control over the government. In Con’s anarchist society however, the people cannot exert control over the private company. I acknowledge that Con is correct in pointing out that we cannot (for instance) put our president in jail, but we can at least remove him from power, which cannot be done in Con’s anarchy. In our current democratic country, the president can only serve a term of 4 years (other officials can only serve in office for a certain amount of time), while the head of companies can remain in charge indefinitely. There are also other parties who constantly openly challenging the party that is currently heading the country; we can also put other federal officials into jail[2]. Point E Pro did not rebut against my first argument in Point E (about the military), so that still stands. As for Con’s arguments against the secession of the government, I am not implying that ALL of the private industries moved, but that there will be certain industries that would migrate away from that area[3]. This would cause the region to lose jobs. “There would be more opportunities for the poor, given the new jobs that must open up to accommodate the loss of government services.” Then wouldn’t there be a net gain of zero jobs? Additionally, regarding Con’s point of increasing wages, Con does not explain how the company would decrease expenditures. Point F Con is missing the point. The point is not whether the fault lies with companies or the charities, but that most of the money we donate does not reach the people that need it. Additionally, if it is, as Con suggest, the fault of the company, then this problem would be even more rampant in a society where companies are invested with enormous amounts of power (This is actually another good example that companies are mostly motivated by greed, which relates to Point G). Here’s a good example why Con’s idea of charity won’t work very well (that people don’t donate much to charities). Bermuda has very little tax[4]. However, despite being a wealthy country, its elderly don’t fare well compared to less wealthy countries[5]. 35% of its elders live below the poverty line. In this case, the quality of life of seniors and “their pursuit of life” is damaged. Point G Monopolies decrease competition. Most studies and experts agree that decreasing competition decreases economic efficiency. Here are two studies [6][7] that proves or assumes this relationship. Most economists today hold this to be true. Since monopolies decrease productivity, it would lead to slower growth. The fact that John D. Rockefeller contributed to charities doesn’t mean he didn’t exploit his workers. In fact, critics charge that his labour practices were unfair[8]. Monopolies have the potential to exploit both consumers and workers. A monopoly can essentially control all the businesses in one region, and charge premiums on its products. The danger is always there. In today’s society, we have eliminated this danger (at least in the USA). By allowing the possibility of this danger, we would be going one step back. Con said “if we are in the same position with the State, then getting rid of it is not detrimental”. Conversely, since we are allowing this danger to potentially occur, we are moving backwards, and consequently it is detrimental. If exploration does occur in the future, then it would be harmful to the citizens’ pursuit of happiness. For instance, today in developing countries, companies have water monopolies[10]. While it is true that the government there are not doing their jobs, this problem cannot be solved by abolishing the governments in the third-world countries. Rather, we need to work together to form a more responsible government that can ensure the universal access of clean water for its own people (Like the US can ensure universal access to its own people). Abolishing the governments and investing the private companies with power will reduce the chance of solving this problem (This example also shows that monopolies that exploit the people do exist). In conclusion, I believe that the “harm” caused by anarchies to freedom and the quality of life exceeds the good. Thanks to Con for the debate! [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.mccord-museum.qc.ca... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://bermuda-online.org... [6] http://www.cci.gov.in... [7] http://laef.ucsb.edu... [8] http://www.ushistory.org... [9] http://www.investopedia.com... [10] http://www.twnside.org.sg...