Anarchy is Detrimental to Freedom and the Growth of Society

Thanks to my opponent for some insightful arguments. Point A: Anarchist communities tend to be small. There are many barriers that divide people in a country. Some of these are: 1. Culture 2. Wealth/Social class 3. Religion Without a government, it becomes extremely difficult for these different groups of people to work together as a collective force without someone to mediate the interests between them. Different groups will have different ideologies and different interests. These ideologies and interests will clash against each other, and the people will be divided into smaller and smaller factions. Below are two examples: American Civil War: The South and the North had different ideologies (one wanted to abolish slavery and the other wished to adhere to tradition). This led to the South declaring itself an independent state. To prevent this from happening, the US government decided to wage war. If the United States was an anarchist society, the South would have successfully separated. Lincoln had come under pressure in the later years of the Civil war from the public (in the Northern States) to make peace with the South. Quebec: Quebec came very close to separating from Canada in a recent referendum (because of cultural differences). One of the reason they did not was that Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau gave Quebeckers many benefits. This caused the Western provinces to begrudge the liberals. The liberals now rarely win seats in the Western Provinces. In this case, it was the government which provided the “glue” to keep Canada together[1]. Additionally, people tend towards people of their own race, social class, culture and religion. These attitudes will also contribute to divisions between people. It is the job of the government to prevent conflicts between people. Without a government, the community will generally be divided smaller and smaller. Historically, most anarchist communities have been small communities[2]. Point B: Military force of anarchist communities tend to be weak, as they tend to be informal militias. Additionally, as we established in Point A, anarchist countries tend to be small, there fore the military size is small. Conclusion 1: From point A, we establish that anarchist communities tend to be small. The disadvantage of a small community is that it tends to be bullied by neighbouring larger countries. From point B, we see that anarchist society has a poor military and cannot defend itself from large powers. Thus an anarchist society is not stable, and therefore is a threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Taking a look few instances of mass society anarchies, we see that most of the mass societies (e.g. Free Society) were overpowered by other forces. Point C: Regulation. There needs to be an entity stronger than corporations to hold them accountable. Corporations tend to exploit the people to maximize their profits, as demonstrated by the 2008 financial crisis. Additionally, in democratic capitalist countries, it is easier for the people to hold politicians accountable than to hold the rich accountable. If the people have a complaint against the State, they could simply vote the opposing party. Consequently, this is why, in recent years, there has been a huge rise in human rights in developed countries in recent years. Con might suggest that we could use labour parties to regulate the behaviour of corporations. This will not work for the following two reasons: a. If the corporation benefits more from the community, then its workers will benefit more from the community as well. Consequently, there is no incentive for the workers to go on strike. b. Capital is highly selective. If strikes do happen, or if the community decides to turn on the company, the corporation will simply outsource to another area. [3] Point D: Without government, public services - as we know it - will not longer exist. Con suggests that public services can be provided by private services. This is particularly dangerous. The private sector(s) that own(s) the police force is now “above law”. The other solution Con might offer is to set aside a community fund to pay the police force. However, this will allow the rich to be “above law”. The police force are still funded by the people they need to govern. The rich will contribute larger amounts of money to the police force, and thus the police force will probably be more lenient towards them[4]. Point E: Modern economists (Both followers of Keynes and Smith) agree that capital is selective. Investors do not wish to invest in a country that is not secure. As established in conclusion 1, a anarchy society is not secure. Additionally, our currency has value because the government is supporting it (built on trust). Without the government, our money will depreciate in value. Foreign governments will stop accumulating the country’s currency. Thus our living standards will decrease[5]. Conclusion 2: An anarchist society will inhibit the growth of society. Points C and D show that in an anarchist community, it is difficult to regulate the behaviours of corporations and wealthy elites in an anarchist community. This will lead to exploitation of the middle and lower class citizens. Point E directly shows that the living standards of citizens will decrease. Point F: Privatizing public education and such (suggested by my opponent) will take away opportunities from lower class citizens and promote inequality. As an example, in the aftermath of the Great Recession of 2008, one out of six American were living in poverty, and almost a quarter of American children were living in poverty[6]. By collecting taxes and then promoting things such as universal health care, the government can mitigate the harsh conditions inflicted on the country’s poor. Point G: Con points out that with anarchy, there would be a rise in companies. This is not necessarily true. Companies can buy other companies and set up monopolies (which can then exploit the people). With the presence of governments, monopolies can be broken up. Additionally, firefighting, schools, etc, are not particularly profitable businesses. In fact, private schools still receive support from the government[7]. Conclusion 3: From Point F and G, we can see that anarchy can deprive the lower-class citizens from their pursuit of happiness. Final Remarks Con remarks “that is to say, that once the laws were created and systems put in place, the citizens under Hammurabi’s Code went through the channels that existed”. The harsh laws were implemented by Hammurabi and enforced by him. In fact, I might argue that the laws were followed due to Hammurabi’s status as ruler and even “prophet”. An ancient carving with a preface states that Hammurabi was chosen by the gods of his people to bring the laws to them. It seems that the people followed Hammurabi’s laws because they revered him (Con can correct me if I am incorrect). While it is true that the State is not perfect, it has been continuously improving over the last few centuries. For instance, regarding the conscription policy my opponent commented on, the US currently operates under an all-volunteer armed forces policy[9], which is a major improvement. I believe that the demerits of anarchy by far outweighs its merits. I look forward to Con’s arguments. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, and Capital Markets Textbook [4]Related to concepts talked about in Joseph Stieglitz’s book “The Price of Inequality” [5]Related to concepts talked about in Barry Eichengreen’s book “Exorbitant Privilege” [6]“The Price of Inequality” [7] http://www.smh.com.au... [8] http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] https://www.teachervision.com...