Anarchy is Detrimental to Freedom and the Growth of Society

Introduction Further Definitions I find it strange that PRO defined the terms “freedom” and “growth of society” but not the terms “detrimental” and “anarchy”. Given that there are two definitions of anarchy, and these two definitions can be seen as entirely at odds, I will suggest one of them as the definition under discussion. 1. Anarchy: “law and freedom without force” per Immanuel Kant’s summary of the term. More specifically “Anarchy” describes a society without rulers. This means, by definition, that no official “government” exists. 2. Detrimental: “tending to cause harm” per oxforddictionaries.com More specifically “Detrimental” means “tending to produce ill effects” as “harm” is defined as “actual or potential ills or danger”. 3. Force: (when used in respects to anarchy) the use or threat of the initiation of physical violence 4. State: “X is a state if and insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim on the 'monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order (Max Weber) Burden of Proof Burden of Proof is on PRO to demonstrate the resolution true. I may either (A) offer rebuttals only to PRO’s arguments or (B) offer rebuttals as well as my own arguments. Since PRO has not made any arguments, I will go with (B). Should I be able to provide strong arguments against the resolution, it is negated and I have won. Should PRO’s arguments fail, whether on their own merit (or, perhaps, lack thereof), or due to my rebuttals to them, I have won. Positive Arguments Argument 1 Anarchy does not necessarily equal chaos. Law can exist independent of the State. When one defines anarchy as “without rulers”, it is sometimes assumed that therefore people will be unruly. This is not necessarily the case. What anarchists promote is a form of self-rule, where each person is free to do as they please, provided they do not use force against others. This differs from a Statist society only in that each person is subject to this. When the State is involved, people are not free to do as they please, provided they do not use force against others. Rather, people are subject to State force every day. From forced schooling (often public, government-funded schooling) to taxation to laws which can be considered senseless, the State initiates force against those in its territory. The serious downside to this is that in order to file a complaint against the State, one must use the State; essentially, one is complaining about the State to the State, which doesn’t allow much room for concession. The State is not the only entity capable of creating laws. Laws regarding murder, theft, rape, and contract violations, for instance, existed prior to the State. The punishments were, arguably, overly severe, encouraging revenge or pursuit thereof [1]. However, what is interesting is that the people enacted these laws, not the creator of it. 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. Likewise, a collection of people could write up particular laws, to which everyone has access, and the only thing which is then required is a legal system. Arbitrators could be selected, based on the offerings in a particular area, and things could be settled quite easily. Ebay and Amazon are the most readily available examples. Should a seller not provide the best service or send a bad product, the buyer may file a dispute and receive restitution. John Rawl’s Veil of Ignorance is perhaps the best option in creating laws for a large area. This is directed towards life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without the State, people have the most possible freedom. People collect all of their earnings, are not imprisoned should their children not go to school, are not imprisoned for defending themselves against law enforcement, are not conscripted during times of war, and are free to sue whomever they choose should a contract be violated, among other things. Since laws can be brought into existence if need be, people will have the protection under law that is desired as well as freedom from State coercion. Argument 2 Public Services can be provided by Private Industry. Government is not necessary for public services. The primary objective of business is to earn a profit. Profit is only earned when enough people buy a particular product or service that the costs of providing it are paid for and there is something left over. [Profit=Revenue-Expense] so “profit” for a business is identical to “disposable income” for an individual. When a person desires to start a business, the very first thing that must be done is a determination of needs and wants of the public. If the public doesn’t need or want what you have, they will no purchase it, you will not get revenue, and you will thus not make a profit, per the profit equation. Moving forward, things like roads, highways, public housing and schooling, law enforcement, and other such services are things which many people want and which some people need. If the State does not exist, these services as they are now will not be provided. However, this does not mean that the services will not be provided at all. Possible ways these services could be provided include (A) consensual payment to a local provider via regular billing or (B) contract-based enforced payment. (A) This method is basically the same as any other bill. Essentially, there is a particular provider of a service, who maybe directly sends you a bill or perhaps has their payment already including in your housing agreement, and each month, you are charged for the use of their service. This will be called the “post-pay” method. While this is the more dangerous method, I am simply offering a way for these services to be provided sans government. (B) This method is similar to insurance payments. You pay for the service before you need so that when you do need it, you will have access to it, rather than paying after you use the service. Hence, the comparison to insurance. With insurance, you pay for the services prior to your actually needing them so then when you in fact need them, you have access to them. This will be called the “pre-pay” method. While some people would argue that these service are “free”, the taxes that we pay serve to pay for those services. While we don’t pay for those services in the same way that rent, mortgage, gas, electricity, water, and insurance are paid, it is still being paid. Argument 3 Given (2), Anarchy can increase economic productivity. With the changes in providers of these public services, the economic conditions will change as well. With the rise in companies, there will be a rise in employment, by virtue of the fact that a company cannot provide and maintain services without employees to do so. Hence, unemployment should decrease. Along with fire fighters, police officers, doctors, nurses, teachers, school administrators, and the like, there would have to be the people who handle the influx of revenue from customers. Likewise, there would still be judges, and other such officials (though they are no longer government officials). All of this is in addition to the current businesses that we have, although corporations would no longer exist in their current iteration. With the decrease in expenses, businesses can either decrease prices or increase wages. All of this results in an increase in people’s economic position, culminating in an increase of quality of life. Closing Remarks Remember, in order to win this debate, PRO must not only make positive arguments for the resolution, but now, PRO must also provide sufficient rebuttals to the arguments I have here provided. With that, I will turn things over to PRO. I look forward to your rebuttals. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...