On balance, Anarchism is More Humanitarian than State Planning

== Re: Pro's Criticisms of S-C == 1) Pro's concern is that an individual's vote is of little importance in a democracy. I specified that more direct democracy was critical in the last round thereby eliminating Pro's concern of a pointless vote. This would require voting more often on more issues and making an individual's say in their community stronger by placing a higher emphasis on the governance of smaller city-states. Stronger, smaller communities would be stressed strengthening votes making neither of these objections an issue. Ancient Greece is an example of how citizens view their voting rights when they have more weight. In those city states a.k.a. the origins of social responsibility, it was considered a high privilege to be a voting citizen; a welcomed duty and honor of service to contribute in governing your own life and society [1]. 2) Pro says that government cannot really be inhibited, and cites that democratic majorities serve as their own judge. First, there are ways of getting around tyranny of the majority [2]. Second, you'll notice that his proposition of anarchy essentially leads to the very same problems Pro cites. In his society, how are disputes solved? Answer - a system of police or courts chosen by citizens via selective financing. In other words, a vote is determined by currency. What people are willing to pay for becomes what rules. The only difference between Pro's proposed system and my own is that people have an equal say in government instead of their say being determined by how wealthy they are. Pro continues to literally refuse answering my questions of how issues are resolved because it has become increasingly obvious his proposition affords no benefits over mine. 3) Once again, the difference in my system vs. Pro's is that he wants law and government to be determined by where people are willing to put their money (in other words, the rich and powerful become dominant because they have more money to "vote" with, and the poor people have overwhelmingly less importance and say in government affairs). The criticism he presented of democracy - tyranny of the majority, as predicted - is not resolved in anarchy and in fact reinforced. My system gives everyone regardless of wealth a say in how society is governed. For example, suppose that in a democracy 8 out of 10 voters wanted to make murder legal. Pro might complain that the majority is simply doing whatever the hell they want with legislation thereby being oppressive. However, if in an anarchy 8 out of 10 people were willing to pay into law enforcement that considered murder legally permissible, then indeed we reach the very same problem. The difference in our systems is that wealth is not a prerequisite for citizen involvement in mine, nor does it dictate morality or influence the law intended to govern all citizens. 4) Pro asks why libertarian rights are insufficient. In the last round I pointed out that output is maximized through sound social management of the macroeconomy which Pro did not contend. Indeed there are a plethora of historical examples which prove the monumental role government can have to effectively maintain and grow the economy [3]. I also explained that regulation is needed to ensure that individuals do not exploit markets for personal gain at the expense of market growth and stability. In other words, that people don't seek to make a quick buck at the expense of disrupting the entire system - which we saw happen with the easy credit conditions of banks, for example, which contributed to the current economic crisis [4]. == Re: Aff Case == C1) In R3 I asked Pro to prove my choices were limited under the state even though I pointed out my choice between Coke, Pepsi, Snapple, etc. He hasn't proven that trade cannot exist under state governance even though or just because people pay taxes. I also pointed out that there is no guarantee of variety in anarchy. This went unrefuted. He mentions that companies could bid on contracts, but this of course ignores the fact that Pro never responded to my question on who has the authority of drafting or upholding contracts and why. His major complaint is that the state has a monopoly on arbitration, but he has yet to submit a feasible alternative. He simply keeps repeating that people will designate their own arbitrators (i.e. whomever they're willing to pay for the job) while ignoring the reality that this is possible in a (direct) democracy as well via votes. Pro advocates putting law making into the hands of the highest bidders. Also, we have absolutely no reason to accept that a judge would choose anarchy over my system in a simple nod to Pascal's wager. C2) Pro acknowledges that LM had equity problems, but then states simply that his example is better without explaining why or arguing against my contention. The equity problem is precisely why I contend that his system is less humanitarian than mine, meaning he should not just gloss over this point. Pro also hasn't proven that A.S. or L. M. is applicable in current times; he simply asks "Why not" while avoiding addressing my presented concerns of things like the size of the market - a more than reasonable problem according to law philosophers who maintain that smaller markets are easier to govern [5]. Resolutions for issues like intellectual property have also been avoided by Pro. We can infer that in Pro's system, he posits society will simply comply with "common law" standards in fear of being ostracized. I quote verbatim from his source - there would be "strong incentives for the guilty to yield to prescribed punishment due to the threat of social ostracism." Pro has yet to defend this moral standard despite my inquiry for him to do so in the past few rounds. Why is the threat of ostracism enough to punish someone for murder, and what if they're not ostracized? Yet again we have even more questions gone completely unanswered, and instead he responds with "I don't see why this is an issue - Here, check out these links." Pro continues, "What counts are incentives. Practicalities are trivial... If anarchy appears majoritarian it is because people agree on so many laws." This couldn't be further than the truth. In Pro's system, incentive is driven by the market. Morality is dictated by money. If trade (currency) drives the market and the market determines law, then law is enacted by wealth. This is not necessarily majoritarian; it is just as likely that one person with a lot of money can have as much influence as a large group of people. It is Pro's burden to defend this probability; so far he hasn't. Solving Disputes - Pro claims that if people buy insurance, insurance will resolve disputes and if they fail the result is them losing business. This proves my point. If I don't like the insurance company's answer in my case vs. Pro, they'll lose my business. If I give them more money than Pro, their incentive is to appease me, keep my business, and turn the highest profit possible regardless of what is right and wrong. Is this humanitarian? C3) Pro doesn't like state aggression. Again *ANY* negative thing the state can do, a private firm can also do if they have the financial backing to do so! Pro continues to ignore this reality. The difference in democracy is that the aggressive individuals can be knocked out of power even by those not wealthy enough to drive them out of the market through "punishments" like boycotts. Just as people do not boycott Nike despite their uneasiness with sweatshops, we cannot rely on people's financial interests to dictate right from wrong. C4) The only thing Pro said in C4 was that anarchy was long-term. This needed to be extended? I can simply say the same thing about my system. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com...