On balance, Anarchism is More Humanitarian than State Planning

**Democracy** Neg thinks smaller states are more functional, but even tiny elections are decided by no less than 100 votes. This is a prisoner's dilemma problem. Individual votes are essentially worthless. Each individual finds serious voting fruitless. The net effect is system failure. As I cited before, flippant voting popularized the philosophies of "total war" and "unconditional surrender". Moreover, democracy advantages special interests. If a firm agitates for a law that will extract $1 from every citizen, it is not worth spending an hour of everyone's time to identify and organize against the policy. In short, democracy externalizes costs to a captive body of "consumers" who can't fight back. Their vote has a low chance of mattering and the cost of motivating an informed majority is prohibitive. Special interests win repeatedly and create net harm to society. Examples include the banking industry, who contributes to both parties (1) and enjoys extraordinary special privileges (2). See also steel (3), medical services (4), the prison and military industrial complexes (5) (6), and unions (7). **Checks and Balances** Neg wants limited statism through rules/constitutions. These checks will fail because whoever is responsible for interpretation or enforcement will simply act in their own interests, whether it is a king, majority, or coalition of parties. Accommodation between coalitions does not protect anyone outside political cliques. States entail making some entity judge in its own case. I reiterate: "The incentives of a monopoly legal system are so perverse that hoping for a benign outcome is Utopian." Democracy really pre-defines a rightless underclass while leaving the majority in anarchy, except the majority govern themselves through the impotent process of voting. Its not much to brag about. She mocks anarchic ostracism, but it is painfully obvious that she doesn't know how this worked in practice. The kind of "ostracism" under anarchism was total denial of legal services, an excessively dangerous position to be in. If she were at all familiar with anarchy in practice she wouldn't be pretending she could get away with murder. Ostracism aside, force is consistent with anarchism if organized non-aggressively. I just have a personal bias towards nonviolence. Apologies for this character fault. **The Power of the Wealthy** In democracy, the power of the rich magnifies. State actors are easier to co-opt than their anarchic counterparts because they socialize costs. Anarchic actors bear their own costs. In anarchy, a very wealthy man who bribes judges also finds that no one wants to deal with him. Under a democratic state, citizens have no ability to disassociate and are bound to this kind of exploitation. Statism advantages the rich. Let's take her toy problem: If 8 in democracy want to make murder legal, they spread costs to the other 2. This socialization of costs makes it easier for them to murder. If 8 in anarchy want to murder, they bear their own costs. It is more expensive and therefore more difficult. Or take the insurance example. She can pay for more rights but she pays out her own pocket rather than the common stock. Statism forces members to pay for their own exploitation. Bizarre hypotheticals aside, wealth in real anarchy is predicated on trade and division of labor, which in turn presuppose property rights. So any anarchic society will need a good foundation of egalitarian law before significant wealth emerges. The historical examples all look like this. I also challenge the idea that anarchic legal systems will be organized exclusively through markets. The historical cases of anarchy show that laws were enforced through community participation rather than through individual payments. **Justice** No theory of justice validates an aggressive monopoly on law. Aggression means attacking innocent people. Monopoly means doing it repeatedly. THIS is true lawlessness. A non-aggressive non-monopolistic system is required by justice, and is by definition anarchy. **Incentives** The only reasonable way to prosperity is division of labor and trade. These require property rights, so there is incentive to produce this legal system. Once established, people in anarchy become dependent on eachother's labor and therefore dependent upon mutual recognition of rights. Trade is a positive feedback loop. Individuals might also cheat or steal from society. There is an incentive for society to deter this behavior through prisons, fines, ostracism, etc. Society is always at odds with criminals, and therefore becomes dependent upon their punishment. Crime is a negative feedback loop. **Monopoly and Choice** Without aggressive intervention, monopolies are unlikely. Everyone is free to provide any service. Barriers to entry are constantly reduced through improving technology and further division of labor. Any problems with the market can be handled peacefully. Compare this to a state: an aggressive monopoly on legal services. There is no choice in arbitration. Monopolies are always bad for consumers. The state further abridges free trade through taxation. **History** Neg has two very trivial arguments here. First, she thinks the LM might have not been perfectly egalitarian. The LM was superior to contemporary state law, meeting the resolution's "on balance" clause. LM could also be reformed without attacking third parties. Secondly, she discounts my examples because they're old. The LM is still in use today. ASL is more sophisticated than modern law in many respects. Somalian customary law and the not-so-wild-west show more modern examples of anarchic law. Still, anarchy would be easier to implement in modern times. Technology disperses information at lightspeed. With more trade interdependence, the incentives towards peace are magnified enormously. War should have ended a hundred years ago. The significance of these citations is to show how anarchy COULD work. The who/where question has many possible answers. Some future anarchist society may come up with a new amazing set of rules. What counts is the powerful incentive to establish peace and order in anarchy. **(non)State Capitalism** SC is a policy, not a theory of government. Government is a WAY of choosing policy, as is anarchy. Her burden is to show policies must be chosen through an aggressive monopoly. SC is a red herring. As I've shown, democratic states will fail to choose good policies and can never be just. Regulation need not violate libertarian rights. If SC policies are worthwhile, people in anarchy will figure out ways to provide them. See "incentives". Democratic socialist groups are compatible with anarchism if their membership is voluntary. This debate is not capitalism versus democracy. This is aggression versus peace. **Closing** I started this debate because there are many sophisticated arguments for states. TheLwerd argues in farfetched what-ifs that were trivial for even medieval anarchies. She tries to derail the round by bringing up sweatshops and the evils of capitalism. This is not about capitalism. It is about anarchism and statism, both of which may be democratic and social. Anarchism means opposition to aggression, organization without attacking innocent people, and relying on social and market forces. Mankind can be better than barbary. The universal recognition of individual rights is a prerequisite of justice. Voluntary markets and social organizations produced lasting peace many times throughout history. Modern interdependence is unprecedentedly pronounced. Anarchy has a better chance of working now more than ever. (1) http://tinyurl.com... (2) http://tinyurl.com... (3) http://tinyurl.com... (4) http://tinyurl.com... (5) http://tinyurl.com... (6) http://tinyurl.com... (7) http://tinyurl.com...