Anarchy is Detrimental to Freedom and the Growth of Society

Primary Remarks “Points C and D directly related to Argument 2. Point G related directly to Argument 3.” The fact that these points relates to my arguments does not mean that they are rebuttals to my arguments. Even if they were treated as such, the rebuttals I have offered thus far then serve as defense. Point C focuses on the accountability of government officials as opposed to that of business owners. Point D deals with the issue of public services and the assertion by PRO that “the rich will be above the law”. The primary conclusion of Argument 2 was that public services can be provided by Public Industry. The “accountability” of the business owners is in the very business transactions that are required for operation. If the business doesn’t operate as it should, civilians can simply opt out of paying and side with another business. In regards to the rich being “above the law”, PRO offers no argument as to why this is detrimental. My response was that we are in the same position as relates to the State. Since we are in the same position, by definition, anarchy can’t be said to be detrimental in this regard. Point G seems to be focused on the rise of new companies, which is entirely tangential to the main point of Argument 3. Argument 3 argues for economic development due to the erasure of government services. Since there are several services which are necessary (law enforcement is one of these), someone must step in to provide them. The fact that a company is the only service provider does nothing against the main point of Argument 3. PRO offers support for the assertion that monopolies decrease efficiency through the citing of two sources that merely assert the same thing, with no arguments to support them. The correlation between competition and productivity is merely that. A correlation. The absence of one doesn’t necessitate the absence of the other, any more than the presence of one necessitates the presence of the other. PRO doesn’t even use either of these papers as support for these arguments. Rather, PRO expects myself and voters to read them, which is poor etiquette on PRO’s part. Now, these points do relate to my arguments, but they do not serve as rebuttals to my arguments. As an example, one could take this argument: 1. Socrates is a man. 2. All men are mortal. 3. Therefore, Socrates is a man. The rebuttal that “men” can be used to single out the male sex is indeed related, but it is not a rebuttal to the argument. Further Rebuttals I think I have provided decent enough rebuttals to PRO’s points. So many of them are unsupported assertions that PRO cannot affirm the resolution. Even so, I will clarify a few things. A Association doesn’t require the creation of a country. The main assertion with Point A is that Area/Country/Group A will likely not work with Area/Country/Group B. I have explained why this is not necessarily the case, and cannot be said to be “likely” the case given only what PRO has offered. I have already explained why religion and social class are unlikely to cause issues, due to their often unnoticed existed. I conceded culture, as culture includes language often times, and language is a significant barrier. B PRO has made a number of universal claims, but only uses three (3) examples to support it. PRO’s argument only serves to show that on occasion, humans choose violence over peaceful acquisition. PRO does nothing to provide arguments as to why this would be this case when an anarchist society is involved. In order to affirm the resolution, PRO must at least provide such arguments. PRO then asserts that living in fear leads to harm to the pursuit of happiness, but doesn’t provide any explanation as to why this is so. Without such explanation, this is an unwarranted assertion C This seems to be a concession of this point. As for my decision not to discuss the regulation of companies, PRO has made the assumption that there will be no regulation at all, which is entirely unwarranted. The 2008 Financial Crisis had just as much to do with Government as it did the Financial Sector. So, if the issue is the banks, the fact that the Financial Crisis was partially caused by Freddie Mac and Fanny May, suffice to say government is detrimental in this area. The State purchased the bad loans from banks, who then continued to issue loans to inadvisable candidates. Since the candidates were inadvisable, due to bad credit history, bad jobs, or poor financial habits, the debt was consistently sold to the State. The houses were foreclosed on, and the result was many empty houses which resulted in the houses being of low value. D Previously addressed. E Actually, no. The old government jobs must be replaced, and then there must be people who construct the new buildings, take care of accounts, and do maintenance, etc. Net job gain would be at least positive. An exact number can’t be selected. As for decreased expenditures, taxes count as expenses. Without taxes, expenses necessarily decrease. It’s simple math. I actually did explain this, though. F The claim is that 97% of the money donated to charities doesn’t go to those in need. The source offered doesn’t support this claim. Rather, the source offered explains that the charities that work with companies to receive donations don’t receive the entirety of the money raised. To say that this displays an issue with charities is simply false. To suggest that since this is the case, therefore charities cannot work to raise money is off-based. Skimming through PRO’s article on Bermuda: (1) the assertion that Bermuda has low taxes is unsupported by the Wikipedia article. (2) The fact that Bermuda has a high average income does not mean it is “a wealthy country”. The article cited by PRO mentions Gross National Income per capita (GNI). “Per capita” means the same as “per person”. Sadly, GNI isn’t regarded as a measure economic development. Gross Domestic Product or Gross National Product are, however. The article suggests that Bermuda is more affluent than the US, despite a gap of several hundred billion dollars’ worth of GDP. PRO’s wiki article on the subject mentions a GDP of only 4.5 billion USD. The US has a GDP of 16.8 trillion. So, I would posit that the article is either mistaken, or presents misleading evidence. Either way, these sources are unreliable. G Previously addressed. Closing Remarks This debate has been one unsupported assertion after another. There are a number of ways to affirm the resolution. However, PRO resorts to unsupported assertions, generalities from small sample sizes, and unreliable sources to affirm the resolutions. The arguments that I presented in Round 1 remain largely untouched, aside from a passing glance and nod to them by PRO as PRO offered their own positive arguments. By definition, PRO would have to directly attack my arguments in order to be offering a rebuttal. That said, PRO hasn’t offered any rebuttals to my positive arguments. Rather, PRO has provided a number of counter rebuttals. The conclusion that PRO has been attempting to reach has not been reached. I provided an explicit definition of “detrimental” to which PRO has not objected, even providing clarification of “ill effects” in the comments section. The full definition of “detrimental” is “tending to produce effects which are undesirable or not conducive to the attainment of a particular goal”. There was a two-fold resolution here: that freedom AND growth of society are harmed by anarchy. PRO’s arguments generally fail to address the latter, and barely address the former. I leave it to the audience to decide the victor. Thanks to PRO for the debate.