BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Many of the reasons for operating a debt have now been eliminated

The only ways to control the deficit, other than stimulating growth and the tax revenues it produces, would be either to cut services or to increase taxes. Both actions would harm the longer term objective of stimulating growth as they both take cash out of the real economy. By contrast, focusing on domestic spending to restart the economy will produce long term stability; whether through stimulus packages or other methods. The idea that there is no need to run at a deficit during a time of recession is absurd. In the light of the financial challenges currently faced by the US, but also in the longer term, it is vital that the government has the ability to run its expenses at a deficit to act as a stimulus. The reality is that it is in the interests of everyone, not just Americans, for the US government to be able to spend relatively freely. Surpluses are nice but they are a luxury the world’s financial engine can rarely afford.
Nobody is going to risk financial instability in the US by calling in the principle sum on the loans that it has taken out

This may well have been the case when a AAA credit rating could simply be taken for granted but it is no longer the case. Standard and Poor has down-graded America’s credit rating[i] and China looks set to follow suit[ii]. A lower rating means paying higher interest on government borrowing. This is new territory for the US; an economy that has no experience of anything other than top ratings. Suddenly all that money from China doesn’t look so cheap and the engine of the world economy is running in to trouble. It’s time to stop being reliant on other people’s money. [i] Robert Peston. “US Loses AAA Credit Rating After S&P Downgrade”. BBC. 6 August 2011. [ii] Peter Beaumont. “Chinese Ratings Agency Threatens US With New Debt Downgrade.” The Guardian. 12 November 2011.
A recession is not the point at whcih debts should be paid back. The state should focus on job creation strategies

At some point the US needs to come to terms with its debts and a gradual collapse of confidence in the US’s ability to pay its debts will not help the American economy or anyone else’s. With a declining tax base – both as a result of unemployment and an increasing burden of economic inactivity through retirement, the government will increasingly have to demonstrate that it is ‘good for the money’ rather than just assuming that something will turn up. Despite hundreds of billions poured into the economy since the start of Obama’s time in office, the economy remains stagnant. As a result it’s time for the government to demonstrate that it can use austerity as well as largesse to solve the problem.
The US should focus on divising ways in which to pay the medicare and medicaid bills faced by its population

If China moves to recall the trillion dollars or so that they are owed because they no longer trust US debt, or even just to offload it, the effect on the average American would be devastating. The benefits in increased exports would be more than compromised by increased costs for basic goods and services. Inflationary pressures would become severe and interest rates – one of the Fed’s primary tools in fighting the recession – would be forced to rise to combat it. It simply makes no sense to run the risk of the sort of collapse that would ensue if the government loses the ability to borrow because of a lack of confidence.
Governments need to live within their means

Ultimately the US Government has to pay its bill just like everyone else. Ultimately maintaining a permanent deficit harms the economy creating both inflationary pressures and effecting interest rates. However, these pressures are not the main source of concern. Although deficits in times of plenty are a grave concern, during a recession most economist agree that deficits may be necessary. However, the US is no longer ‘mostly in debt to itself’ as has been the case in the past.[i] Increasingly, its debt is owned by the major Asian economies; especially China. The implications should conflict arise between the two are severe as China, effectively has the capacity to bankrupt the US and the dollar at a time of its own choosing. [i] John W. Schoen. “Just who Owns the US National Debt?” MSNBC 3 April 2007
Paying off national debt via austerity measures would free-up money used for interest payments

The first of the baby boomers start retiring in 2011 and, as a result, qualify for Medicare. There are 78 million people in this generation and all of the statistics suggest that they are likely to live significantly longer than previous retiring generations[i]. As a result the US has some very big bills coming in the next few years and a decreasing base of those working and paying tax revenue to pay them. This is really not the time to be wasting money on interest for deficits built up to support programmes that are unnecessary. Paying down the debt frees up tax revenue for much needed support, both financial and medical, for seniors as they retire. [i] Laurence J. Kotlikoff and Scott Burns. “The Coming Generational Storm.” MIT Press 2004.
Fastest possible transportation over a short distance

Public transportation has not been getting much faster over the last few decades. The fastest method of transport, supersonic jets in the form of Concorde ceased operation in October 2003.[1] Even if at some point a new generation of supersonic planes are built these will not be ideal for travelling between cities that are comparatively close together. The time spent getting the plane up and down from cruising altitude means they would take longer over these short distances than a slower option at ground level. The Hyperloop at more than 700mph will be twice as fast as high speed rail. To take the different options on the San Francisco-Los Angeles route cars take 5hours 30minutes, the proposed high speed train would take 2hours 38minutes, by plane takes 1hour 15minutes whereas the Hyperloop would only take 35minutes.[2] [1] ‘End of an era for Concorde’, BBC News, 24 October 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3211053.stm [2] Musk, Elon, ‘Hyperloop Alpha’, SpaceX, 12 August 2013, http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-20130812.pdf p.8, 56
The Hyperloop is comparatively cheap

The Hyperloop would be cheap to build. The pods themselves would only cost $1.35million each, the pressurised tube just $650million (or double if wanting vehicles), with only two stations their cost would only be $250million. The biggest cost would be the construction of the pylons carrying the tube which is estimated at $2.55 or $3.15billion. There is an estimated total cost of $4.06billion for the passenger only version or $5.31billion for the vehicle version. [1] This should be compared to the current cost for California’s high speed rail project which is estimated to be $68billion while covering much the same ground.[2] [1] Musk, Elon, ‘Hyperloop Alpha’, SpaceX, 12 August 2013, http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-20130812.pdf pp.23, 27, 32, 28, 32 [2] Slosson, Mary, ‘California moves forward on $68 billion high-speed rail project’, Reuters, 18 July 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/18/us-usa-california-rail-idUSBRE86H1K820120718
The Hyperloop will be a low cost system for the user

The Hyperloop would be the cheapest mode of intercity transport possible. “Transporting 7.4million people each way and amortizing the cost of $6 billion over 20 years gives a ticket price of $20 for a one-way trip for the passenger version of Hyperloop.”[1] There are very few additional costs. Usually the main cost for transportation beyond the infrastructure is the energy but the Hyperloop produces more energy than it uses so would make a profit here. There would be additional maintenance costs and some minor staff costs but this is unlikely to add too much to the ticket price. The Hyperloop would therefore be very price competitive compared to the $100 and up for flights. [1] Musk, Elon, ‘Hyperloop Alpha’, SpaceX, 12 August 2013, http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-20130812.pdf p.56
It will never work

The plan for the Hyperloop is sound technically but would it work politically? It is unlikely that the California high speed rail project will be scrapped simply because there is a new competitor on the block. The Hyperloop has the advantage of being cheap but it is cheap because it is being built in the middle of an existing highway, the interstate-5. Building the Hyperloop would therefore cause traffic chaos so there would not be much political support.[1] Build it elsewhere and land would need to be bought just as with proposals for high speed rail. Maglevs are, like the Hyperloop, practically sound – one travels from Shanghai Airport into the center of the city[2] – but they have not been built. High speed trains, despite being slower, have been the preferred method for creating high speed transportation systems because they can easily connect into the existing rail infrastructure, a problem for both the Hyperloop and maglevs. [1] Yarow, Jay, ’41 Years Ago, A Scientist Explained Why Elon Musk’s Hyperloop is Doomed’, Business Insider, 12 August 2013, http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musks-hyperloop-needs-a-strong-leader-2013-8 [2] Kidman, Alex, ‘Shanghai’s Maglev Train: Astonishingly Fast… and a little dull’, Gizmo, 12 September 2011, http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2011/09/shanghai%E2%80%99s-maglev-train-astonishingly-fast%E2%80%A6-and-a-little-dull/
Lack of capacity or room for expansion

The plans for the Hyperloop provide that “The capacity would be 840 passengers per hour which more than sufficient to transport all of the 6 million passengers traveling between Los Angeles and San Francisco areas per year.” With only 28 people per capsule and a maximum of one capsule every 30 seconds there is not much room for expansion. It would seem surprising if this service only carried 6million passengers a year. The Taiwan High Speed Rail running between Taipei and Zuoying carried 41.6 million passengers in 2011[1] considering that Taiwan has a population of 23 million compared to the combined population of the San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles metropolitan areas of 26million this does not seem an unreasonable comparison.[2] Even if we assume it will not be used at all for commuting and take the Eurostar as the point of comparison the Hyperloop still has only two thirds of the capacity it would need as Eurostar’s ridership is currently approaching 10million.[3] [1] "Table 2-8 Passenger Traffic of High-Speed Rail". Monthly Statistics of Transportation & Communications. MOTC Department of Statistics. [2] ‘Annual Estimates of the Population of Combined Statistical Areas’, Census.gov, 2012, http://www.census.gov/popest/data/metro/totals/2012/tables/CBSA-EST2012-02.csv [3] ‘’Strong’ 2012 for Eurostar’, Global Rail News, 25 March 2013, http://www.globalrailnews.com/2013/03/25/strong-2012-for-eurostar/
There have been similar suggestions before for intercity travel

The Hyperloop is not the first proposal to use tubes with low – or no – pressure in them. A very high speed train was proposed by Robert M. Salter in 1972. This as a train running in a vacuum would have gone substantially faster than anything that is currently being proposed travelling at around 3000 mph.[1] Nor is this the first proposal for a pneumatic transport system; such trains were around in the 19th century. They were first proposed as far back as 1812[2] and several short demonstration tracks were constructed such as the Beach Pneumatic Transit in New York which opened in 1870.[3] Such idea has not got off the ground in the past and there seems no reason why they should now when the basic technology is pretty much the same. [1] Salter, Robert M., ‘The Very High Speed Transit System’, RAND Corporation, 1972, http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P4874.html [2] Medhurst, George, ‘Calculations and Remarks, Tending to Prove the Practicability, Effects and Advantages of a Plan for the Rapid Conveyance of Goods and Passengers: Upon an Iron Road Through a Tube of 30 Feet in Area, by the Power and Velocity of Air’, D.N. Shury, 1812, http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&id=7AoGDIstdsEC&redir_esc=y [3] Mihm, Stephen, ‘New York Had a Hyperloop First, Elon Musk’, Bloomberg, 14 August 2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-14/new-york-had-a-hyperloop-first-elon-musk.html
The Hyperloop is comparatively cheap

Less than $6billion seems to be suspiciously low. Some land would undoubtedly need to be purchased if only to allow for less tight corners. Added to this there would still be delays due to the need for permits for noise, light and vibration which will mean rising costs.[1] A study of 250 major transport infrastructure projects has found that 90% of come in over budget and this escalation is 45% on rail projects.[2] And it should be remembered that this is dealing with systems were we know the costs not something that is completely new. Additionally there would be costs associated with the closures of the main road routes between Los Angeles and San Francisco – though these might be moved to the people of California the cost would still be there. [1] Fernholz, Tim, ‘Does the Hyperloop even make sense for California?’, Quartz, 12 August 2013, http://qz.com/114463/does-the-hyperloop-even-make-sense-for-california/ [2] Flyvbjerg, Bent et al., ‘How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects?’, Transport Reviews, vol.23, no.1, 2003, pp.71-88, http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/COSTFREQ4.pdf, p.85
The Hyperloop will be a low cost system for the user

While it seems reasonable that the cost will be low it is questionable that it will be quite as low as suggested. If the cost of construction rises – as it inevitably does – then because this is the basis for the pricing calculation the prices will surely go up. Musk is also forgetting all the extra costs that would be incurred such as the cost of airline style security measures.[1] [1] Fernholz, Tim, ‘Does the Hyperloop even make sense for California?’, Quartz, 12 August 2013, http://qz.com/114463/does-the-hyperloop-even-make-sense-for-california/
It will never work

That there will be some opposition to such a construction is inevitable. This however does not matter in a rational look at the advantages and disadvantages of such a transportation system. The politicians will ultimately decide on the same calculus as everyone else. That the Hyperloop does not connect into infrastructure in the same way that the maglevs fail to is not a relevant argument to the United States where there are few rail services to connect into. Instead the possibility of having a Hyperloop that transport vehicles invites the prospect of connecting into the road network. A much more useful alternative in California.
Lack of capacity or room for expansion

It is very unlikely that the Hyperloop would quickly reach its capacity. Currently the number of people travelling from Los Angeles to San Francisco by plane only number 2.8million so there would clearly be plenty of room for expansion.[1] [1] Amin, Saurabh, ‘Ride the Hyperloop before decade’s end?’, CNN, 13 August 2013, http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/13/opinion/amin-hyperloop-travel
There have been similar suggestions before for intercity travel

That there have been similar suggestions before does not mean they are not commercialisable today. The very high speed trains are an inspiration for the Hyperloop but have serious disadvantages by comparison. Because of their vacuum tube the system would be stopped at the slightest leak.[1] They are also astonishingly expensive with the cost associated with construction estimated at as high as $1trillion, the hyperloop is much more economic and therefore practical. [1] Musk, Elon, ‘Hyperloop Alpha’, SpaceX, 12 August 2013, http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-20130812.pdf p.3
Even in societies with a state, anarchist groups provide a voice for the oppressed.

Even if the state is never overthrown anarchism will always have something important to say. Anarchist groups were at the forefront of resistance groups in world war two, and today they are at the forefront of protests against the state whenever it tries to take even more from the worst off in society, for example in anti cuts protests in the UK.[1]   Anarchist communities like Freetown Christiana in Copenhagen exist as centres of peace and culture, by standing outside of society it provides a useful commentary on society as well as being an example for how people can live more freely without a state.   [1]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8409048/TUC-protest-march-anarchists-on-the-rampage-in-London.html   improve this
The state is a meaningless metaphysical entity that is unnecessary and indeed detrimental for our lives.

  There is nothing that states provide for us that we cannot provide for ourselves by working together as communities. All the state seeks to do is oppress the people, forcing us to obey laws and pay taxes we did not consent to. In many cases the state goes out of its way to deprive people of their basic needs, for instance when the state evicts squatters from houses that were being left unused, the UK for example is moving to criminalize squatting[1]; or when the state has property laws that keep wealth in the hands of the few whilst the many struggle to survive as has been the case in the United States, particularly in the 19thCentury when President Hayes argued “There can be no republican institutions with vast masses of property permanently in a few hands, and large masses of voters without property”.[2]   [1]http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/08/21/plans-to-criminalise-squa_n_932333.html [2]
States are never truly representative of the people.

Even if we ignore all of the totalitarian regimes in the world, democracies do not truly represent the people. Politicians all too often promise progressive changes and then fail to deliver, for example Obama’s failure to close Guantanamo Bay[1] and Nick Clegg breaking his promises over tuition fees[2] The interests of politicians in democracies are far too often tied to the interests of the rich and powerful; people like Rupert Murdoch have unprecedented access to politicians which is quite simply not available to the average person[3]   Demographically heads of state are very rarely representative, The USA has never had a female or Hispanic president, the UK has never had a non white Prime Minister and 66% of UK ministers have been privately educated[4]. These people can never truly have the people’s interests at heart.   [1]http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/6842054/obamas-guantanamo-failure.thtml [2]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/spending-review/8078454/Spending-review-David-Cameron-and-Nick-Clegg-apologise-for-broken-promises.html [3]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politic
The state has far too often been an instrument for facilitating wars and other acts of violence.

The state has, throughout history, been responsible for an immeasurable amount of violence and destruction. From ancient times where states were the primary instrument of enforcing laws so that people could keep slaves, to the actions of imperial nations like Britain, to the holocaust to all of the pointless wars fought throughout history, states have a long record of slaughtering and ruining the lives of countless numbers of their own and other states people. William Eckhardt estimates battle deaths since 3000 BC at 151million while Beer came out with a much higher figure of 1.1 billion battle deaths (NB both use dodgy calculations and of course in either case the total military deaths let alone civilian would be much higher).1   These actions are always taken because they are in the interest of the ruling class, but the ruling classes are never the ones directly involved in these conflicts, they instead use the state as an instrument to coerce other people to fight their battles for them. In a stateless society the people might need to fight against oppression but they would never be forced to fight for causes that have nothing to do with them.    [1] http://sdi.sagepub.com/content/22/4/437.extract
Community action is a more powerful tool than the state for providing goods.

Forcing people into community action, as the state tries to do, detracts from real community action. People naturally try to help one another out and do what they can for their communities but when the state tries to undertake this action itself it always wastes a huge amount or resources and sends the message that the job is done. In a stateless society people would know that they have a responsibility to care for their fellow man and take all the steps they possibly can to do so. This action will be more direct, enthusiastic and relevant than any taken by the government because those organising it will inevitably be in closer contact and have more of a stake with the problems they are trying to solve.
The state provides functions which are utterly essential.

Anarchist groups are very naive in believing that we could survive without states, states provide a countless functions that would not exist otherwise. Things like the fire service would be very hard to organise as a community, it is likely that that very few people would volunteer to perform such a dangerous job. There are many vital services that require economies of scale to exist in order to provide the specialized services. This means that something larger than a local community is needed to provide it. For example communities could provide basic healthcare but could they provide the cutting edge research necessary to improve it, and then the expensive treatments to be able to take advantage of that research? Legal systems are dependent on the state for their existence, without a centralised system of law and a state to appoint judges and organise and fund courts and the police. Under anarchy law and order is likely to look a lot more like mob justice. Without any sort of police force or judiciary it would be highly likely that a community would be able to prevent crime.
Anarchy has nothing to contribute but violence.

Anarchist groups may claim to contribute to political discussion and propose a viable alternative to states, but too regularly they contribute very little more than violence, they regularly hijack legitimate peaceful protests and by acting in a violent way detract from those protests.[1] In order to be able to contribute to society they need to be able to show that they have something to contribute. People will not listen if the movement is associated with violence so anarchism will never have an opportunity to contribute while it practices violence.   [1]http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23896753-what-went-wrong-at-the-millbank-riot.do
Anarchist Communities have a very poor track record.

Without the state there is very little in the way of protection against immorality, if one looks at Freetown Christiana, supposedly an anarchist utopia, it has actually been a blight on Copenhagen society; it has only thrived because of the cannabis trade, and is a haven for biker gangs[1] where the police have been attacked with petrol bombs[2]. If a small community like Christiana cannot survive without becoming a hotbed of immorality then what hope is there for a totally stateless world?   [1] http://www.cphpost.dk/news/local/87-local/51345-fears-of-christiania-becoming-a-biker-gang-haven.html [2]http://www.cphpost.dk/component/content/51421.html?task=view