On balance, Anarchism is More Humanitarian than State Planning

[ CLARIFICATIONS ] Pro is seemingly arguing an Aristotelian position: That government or politics emerges naturally as a biological necessity, or as a natural result of a collective group of individuals coming together to form a society. In other words, people are capable of governing themselves according to the necessities of the times without following a specific plan which he feels challenges both morality and practicality. Due to time and character restraints, I will expand on a more preferable option to anarchy in the upcoming rounds and explain why a specific non-anarchist system is preferable in R3 giving him 2 rounds (the traditional standard) to reply. [REBUTTAL TO THE AFF CASE ] O1) Anarchism has good incentive structures. Re: Pro's only argument here is that a successful society must harmonize the actions of participants. This does not mandate that anarchy is the only system compatible with this ideology. In fact, almost any other state planned system meets these standards -- hence why this may have went "unchallenged" i.e. ignored for irrelevance. C1) Anarchism provides an increase in the standard of living. Re: Looking back at R1, we can see that Pro's only argument here is that people can trade. Once again, this is an option in many other forms of government aside from anarchy, so this proves nothing in anarchy's favor. People can trade in a democracy too -- probably why this went "unchallenged." C2 a) Provision of security is simply a collective action problem. Re: Pro says that the Neg has not shown why this problem is unsolvable without government. On the contrary, I explained how a private legal system is idealistic and impractical to which Pro has offered no rebuttal. To re-cap my arguments, there would be no responsibility for law enforcement to remain consistent in their values or punishment; no system of checks and balances to ensure equality or fairness; no answer as to who would judge specific disputes (if both parties did not agree on a particular arbitrator); no answer as to who would be responsible for funding said arbitrator; no answer as to what laws or mandates would ensure said arbitrator was paid at all; no specified non-aggressive force that could punish anyone for non-payments; etc. In short, I did respond, and Pro did not respond to my rebuttal. C2 b) Problems in anarchy are self correcting. Re: The only "self correcting" argument Pro gave in R1 is trade. Once again, anarchy is not the only system in which people can trade, meaning this point does not prove anything. He has said that the desire to labor and trade peacefully will ensure that no corruption ensues, and that I left this point unchallenged. However in R1 I explicitly outlined reasons and examples to disprove this idealistic notion of "self correcting" government. It's becoming increasingly obvious that Pro is ignoring my arguments and then stating that I did not refute his points. Pro has the BOP and yet has not offered substantial evidence that the simple allowance of trade is enough to solve discrepancies peacefully and justly while also ignoring my examples and analogies depicting otherwise. O3) Utopia is not an option. Re: In R1, the only thing Pro said in this point is "I still claim it as the best choice among many." What EVIDENCE supports this? He simply states his opinion... So why is this even listed as a bulleted point that I'm supposed to respond to at all? I could simply say "I still claim anarchism is not the best choice among many." Throughout this debate is where I will outline a case in favor of a non-anarchistic system. C3) Self ownership and peace are humanitarian. Re: In R1 Pro said, "The incentives of anarchism lead away from aggression and warfare." He once again says this point went "unchallenged" yet again we can see that I absolutely did respond to this in my R1 rebuttal. While I do not deny that self-ownership and peace are humanitarian, I disagree that anarchism leads away from aggression and warfare which I specifically stated in R1. I pointed out examples of places that became increasingly violent after lawlessness or the lack of a central government, and to quote myself verbatim: "Many anarchists see the destruction of property as an acceptable form of violence, or argue that it is not violence at all. For instance, Voltairine de Cleyre drew on American historical events, including the destroying of revenue stamps and the Boston Tea Party, as a defense of such violent activities. If one acts violently, who will determine if it is coercive vs. aggressive, and regardless of the answer, how would the offender be punished? Who would punish them?" You'll notice that Pro never responded to any of these questions, comments or concerns -- and instead simply says I left his point regarding anarchy and violence "unchallenged" lol. On the contrary, I gave examples of how violence is nearly inextricable from anarchy and some anarchist arguments in defense of violence which went entirely ignored and/or misrepresented. C4) Neg is skeptical about the formation of an anarchist society. Re: Pro's argument was "Free trade is self reinforcing because it creates a dependence on the libertarian rights of others." This does not answer or solve the problems I presented in R1 whatsoever. Pro simply says I am skeptical and yet does not offer a rebuttal to my points. For instance, I asked what happened in cases where I did not make good on the promises of a contract. If people were still willing to trade with me or do business for a variety of reasons, then I essentially remain "unpunished." In that way the popular and powerful people are untouchable while others in society experience a different standard of living. [ CONCLUSION THUS FAR ] We can see that I did indeed respond to all of Pro's "unchallenged" arguments yet he chose not to respond to my rebuttal outside of single sentences with no explanations. Quotes from other anarchists in favor of anarchism do not address my rebuttal directly. [ EXPANSION OF THE NEG CASE ] I accept Pro's definition of government and never implied that government should ONLY be defined as a group of people. Instead, I was revisiting the other questions I asked in R1 (which Pro ignored) -- Why assume that every government actor is a rotten power monger, but then assume that every free trader holds values similar to your own and will act rationally and with a cool head in a crisis situation? The presumable answer is that the people will govern themselves because a form of government or other equivalent which holds people accountable for their actions is preferable in an anarchist society. This, of course, ignores my next point: What if no desired system or group is mutually agreed upon or deemed preferable by everyone in society? We can assume that this would be the case, and as such, the ideology which Pro finds preferable to govern is only reliable therefore as a preference of the majority. I wonder how this is any different from criticisms of democracy and I hope Pro responds to these concerns in the next round. I find the answer of respecting everyone's libertarian rights to be circular; who is there to enforce those rights? And since we agree that people are greedy (therefore inclined to cheat and steal) then a simple "incentive" not to cheat does not really address the problem or prove in any way that people actually wouldn't cheat -- especially considering Pro ignored the discrepancies regarding money, power, popularity and other things that would interfere with the justice system. In short, we experience these problems in our society (the rich and/or powerful are not held accountable or to the same standards) so why should we believe that anarchy -- a system with even less stringent rules -- would not afford the same problems? This central question left unanswered lies at the heart of my rebuttal for anarchism.