Voluntarism vs. Democracy

C1: Political Ideology: “In social studies, a political ideology is a certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, and or large group that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order.” (1) Point A: Defining Liberalism “liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in “Common Sense” (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power.”(2) Point B: Libertarians are within this ideology. Within Liberalism are divisions. Much like within Christianity there are many denominations that agree on most main points, yet disagree on details. Libertarians fall under the political ideology of Liberalism.(3) Point C: Democracy is a key part of Liberalism “…some of the key ideas behind liberalism: democracy, equal rights, human rights, the separation between State and religion and freedom of religion, the focus on the individual well-being.”(3) C1 Conclusion: Libertarian philosophy stems from liberalism. Liberalism is tied to democracy. Therefore, as I mentioned last round, It seems clear that the institutors of voluntarism and the NAP are advocates that government applying the philosophy of NAP would take the form of a democracy. Re: Issues of Comparison Pro provides us with voluntarism “political equivalent – anarchy.” Further stating that “we have seen successful anarchist and voluntarist societies in practice. It is not just a theory but a legitimate form of government.” Though she then also says “I am arguing in favor of the libertarian ideology of government, while my opponent is arguing in favor of democracy.” Further confusing this debate she says “ I am advocating for an anarchist or libertarian government, while Con is arguing for a democratic one (eg. the status quo).” Either Pro is arguing for an Anarchic government as she has indicated, or she is advocating a libertarian government, which as sources show would be a democracy. It cannot be both. Here is why. Anarchism is a political ideology separate from liberalism. This makes it separate from the branch of liberalism that is libertarianism.(1) Pro then says “In layman's terms, I am arguing for libertarianism. My opponent is arguing that the state should be run according to the democratic whims of the people..." Again, my opponent must choose anarchic or libertarian, they are not compatible ideologies. Also, my arguing on behalf of democracy is not endorsing the “whims of the people.” As mentioned already in this debate I am advocating for a republic. Indeed the concept of a republic was to be a type of democracy that could check the power of the people while the people retain sovereignty. Pro then states that in democracies “the people should be able to violate the NAP and vote to have the government play an additional role in citizen's affairs, and create other rules and boundaries regarding people's lives, property and the market. “ Pro seems to be implying that because a democracy, for example the USA, has in its history allowed the people to violate the NAP that Democracy itself allows such an action. This does not follow. Likewise pro says “Democracy allows for taxation; voluntarism pretty much does not. Democracy allows for instigating war; voluntarism does not (without prior aggression or threats). Democracy allows for laws against victimless crimes (eg. prostitution, smoking) and voluntarism does not, etc. “ Again, some democracies do allow such action. However, it is not inherent to the concept of a democracy. Also, pro leaves room to believe such things are not excluded from voluntarism forms of government. For emphasis again she says ““Democracy allows for taxation; voluntarism pretty much does not.” Pretty… much… does… not. Does this mean that somewhere some voluntarist do? If so then it is clear that these examples apply to specific cases of Democracy and voluntarism, not the ideals themselves. Re: Principles that Lead to Democracy Pro says “Con says that he does not imagine I will be disputing the merit of equality. On the contrary, I completely dispute the utility of presumed or pretend measures of equality.” Then stating “That is why people should make their own decisions, and not make decisions regarding policy that permits theft, force and aggression against others as democracy allows.” Within Liberalism the concepts of Equality and Liberty are indispensable. There is debate over what equality or liberty entails. For example Pro while supposedly arguing against “equality” argues that people should be free. Does pro believe people should be equally free? I hope this proves the point that equality is at the core of libertarianism. Just in case… “Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty (which is especially stressed in classical liberalism) and equality (which is more evident in social liberalism).Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.”(5) Again, Libertarianism is a branch of Liberalism. Equality and liberty are at its crux. As you stated in round 1… “Voluntaryism is a libertarian philosophy….” Pro says “Con adds that in order to secure rights, people must inherently consent to be governed. I'm arguing that in order to protect one's rights, they must consent to not violate the rights of others.” This is a strange thought. I did not argue that in order to secure rights people must consent. Rather that government is instituted to secure those rights. As far as consenting not to violate the rights of others, that seems idealistic. After someone “consents” to not violate the rights of others, we are to just expect that they won’t. Pro says “This is where I must clarify and repeat the distinctions between the two forms of government: voluntarism vs. democracy, as the two are NOT compatible in application.” I have shown this round and last that they indeed are and stem from the same ideology. Pro then says “Indeed Con repeats in the conclusion of his last round that the founding fathers Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mill and John Locke would all have supported a voluntarist government.” That is not my conclusion. It was that voluntarist’s, listed on your link, supported types of democracies. This is empirically and irrefutable evident. Pro says “This is an interesting argument, as the founding fathers were infinitely more libertarian than the politicians (and voters) of America today.” Yes they were. As libertarians, who followed the ideology of liberalism, they established a republic. Which again is a type of democracy. Pro again states“It is important to note that these two ideologies and governments are not synonymous or compatible. They are in fact mutually exclusive.” Empirically false as Thomas Jefferson is notably a voluntarist on pro’s link and he helped establish a type of democracy. He was even President of said democracy. Pro’s contentions are placed on specific examples of democracies however, not on the concept of democracies. Thus these contentions do not support her burden of argument. Again I share from Pro’s round one “I will be arguing that voluntarism is the superior moral principle to democracy.” No such argument has be made on moral grounds. Rather Pro has in a way cherry picked specific democracies that have done things beyond the NAP. However, these examples are not inherent to democracies. I maintain that this debate has an issue as these to ideals are not at odds with each other. Rather, they stem from the same Ideology, Liberalism. The principles of democracy and voluntarism are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the institutors of voluntarism and the NAP are advocates that government applying the philosophy of NAP would take the form of a democracy. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.britannica.com... (3) http://en.wikipedia.org... (4) http://en.wikipedia.org... (5) http://en.wikipedia.org...