Anarcho-Capitalism

==His Case==Pemise 1: Homesteading Principle 1. Merda gives no warrant or justification. He starts with the premise that homesteading gives justification. However, he doesn't tell you why the homesteading principle is justified in the first place. Unless this can be done, no links can be made to the following premises or conclusions. 2. The homesteading principle lacks specificity as a bright-line. “Labor” is a vague word. Moreover, there are many debates over exactly what entails the homesteading principle. Some argue for mixing labor and some for fencing. Unless Merda can give an exact meaning of homesteading, its useless as a premise.Premise 2: Monopolies are unjustfied 1. No solvency and TURN. An anarcho-capitalist society can also devolve into a monopoly. Doesnt have to be the “State” per se, but it can be a private institution which dominates economically. This can be seen historically as true, before monopoly laws were put into affect. 2. The State is necessary for minimal solvency since its the only one who could enforce monopoly laws. To have an effective system checks are necessary. As such, my system, with a State, checks back any excessive expansion of power of a dominate corporation. And corporations check back the State through, e.g. lobbying and the power of capital flow.==My Case==Framework1. Everything is comparative. I.e. you cant choose between systems unless there are competing systems in the first place. As such my opponent and I are not in a void or a bubble. Remember, both have reciprocal burdens. Thus, he must show 1) solvency and 2) comparative advantage. If he doesn't show either, he has not upheld his side as a valid competing system. 2. Prefer consequentialism. Ethical systems derive from human interaction and our evaluation of the world around us. Morality would be void if human interaction did not exist, because then there would be no one evaluating the situation in the first place. Thus, we can infer that ethics promote beneficial human interaction, since that is its sole purpose. Moreover, all competing ethical systems devolve into a consequential basis. 3. Presume Con. Even though we have reciprocal burdens, if there is at any point doubt over who won the round, you must default Con. This is true because debating the value of anarcho-capitalism is strictly limited to theoretical judgments and assumptions. Basically we fiat something that has yet to be fiated in reality. Therefore, prefer the status quo which can be evaluated theoretically as well as empirically. C1: Anarcho-capitalism is theoretically problematicA. There is no guarantee that people within this realm obey by the laws of utmost “liberty”. Since the State has final say on the law, there is a codified and objective law of the land. An anarcho society would lack this since it lacks legitimacy to act. The common anarcho response is that agencies will agree to a fundamental code of conduct, i.e. protect the natural rights, especially property. However, with no legitimate, overarching institution this claim is simply a fiated fantasy since it requires full cooperation with no guiding authority. David Friedman, the son of Milton Friedman states: “...nothing, nothing whatsoever, guarantees that the ‘resulting order’ will be liberal.” David makes a keen point - since there is no monopoly on law, we cannot assume these agencies will act to protect human rights. B. This just leads to a complication of law. The general anarcho notion is that judges and arbiters will be the protectors of this law and/or rules of conduct. However, insofar as cooperation (at this stage of a anarcho-society) is problematic at best, the most probable outcome is a numerous amount of different legal precedents, decisions and rules over a multitudes of different jurisdictions and districts. This creates a coexistence problem. This can be empirically weighed through an analysis of international law. But expand this 10x when dealing with the formation of an anarcho system. I will isolate different problematic arguments:(i) Person A submits and pays Court X. Person B gets injured on Person A’s property. Person B sues Person A. Person B has his own court, Court Y. Person A wants to go to Court X, Person B wants to go to Court Y. How does one reconcile this coexistence of law? This is very problematic because a set up of an anarcho system, unless an overarching monopolist system is established, coexistence will result in inefficiency. (ii) We can see that international law today is extremely complicated and inefficient. E.g. the UN, the ICC and ICJ. All of these lack power to enforce, unless the US (the hegemonic power) decides to step in. The problem of international law will also exist in an anarcho system. Return to the scenario. Person B was traveling to a different district, where he falls on Person A’s property. Person B wants to sue Person A in Court Y, which is in his district. However Person A refuses to go to Court Y, and uses the non-aggression principle as defense against subpoena. Person B cannot do anything at this point because a court cant rule on Person’s A fault unless Person A is there, and thus forced movement cannot be done. (iii) Lets even go further. Person A and B both have their own defense contractors. Person B pays his contractors to forcefully bring Person A to Court Y. Person A, however isnt a dumb. He pays his contractors to defend him. Result: 7 people are dead, including person A and B.Drieu Godefridi, highlights this point: "Step out into the street, and you will need a lawyer. An anarcho-libertarian order presupposes an international private law, the complexity of which, multiplied a thousand-fold, would be humanly unmanageable.”C. Profit Motive. Whereas the State doesnt have a profit motive, since it can gain capital through taxes, agencies within the anarcho system do. This is problematic in terms of law, because law is meant to be impartial. Courts would be heavily skewed since they would depend on private capital. Return to the scenario (before they died). Person A wants to go to Court X because he feels he will have a better chance since he pays Court X. And it is obvious to Court X that they need people like Person A to keep the court running. Thus, Court X wants to help Person A as much as possible. The same goes for Person B and Court Y. Either way its a double bind. Either the conflict is no resolved, or the decision was already predetermined due to the profit motive.C2: ThreatsA. Crime. Insofar as an anarcho system would result in a bunch of different districts, it can be easily deduced that “crime” districts would result. I.e. districts which provide safe-haven for criminals for a nice hefty fee. Even though the cost might be high, for a criminal it would be worth it. Pay X defense agency to defend Y district. Criminal A, B, C, D, E, F … go out and are thieves and hit-men. They return to the criminal district with complete protection. Impact is a double-bind. Either A) crime will continue as normal, basically unhindered or B) vengeance is taken, which will result in a civil war like scenario. This would be true because a whole bunch of defense agencies will be fighting each other. B. External threats - the transition period. Now, say for instance the US decides to become an anarcho society. This is a great economic opportunity for China - gain land and a whole mass of new cheap labor. China preemptively strikes the US homeland. Everyone is now enslaved to the Chinese. Pro will always lack solvency in the transition period. This is true because the State would be delegitimized, obviously since an anarcho system is being created, but it will be way to early for the power of defense agencies to come into being. Cross-apply the profit motive. China could easily outpay private donations to certain defense agencies. The anarcho system would thus collapse against the power of national monopolies elsewhere.