Minarcho-Capitalism Should be Preferred to Anarcho-Capitalism.

Thank you, Con, for supplying your opening case. I look forward to refuting it to the best of my abilities. I have developed a refutation and I will address several of the most prominent issues in your opening statement. As a quick side note, I will mention that much of this rebuttal had been written at a very late hour and may not make perfect sense. I will review it in the morning before I finalize my argument and post it, but I cannot guarantee that everything will be crystal clear. I preemptively apologize to my opponent, the audience, and the judges for any confusion I may cause them. However, I digress... The Non-Aggression Principle My opponent argues that the defined form of minarchism and my state funding plan necessarily violates what is known as the "non-aggression principle." However, this requires failing to understand that the NAP is strictly a code of ethics and my funding plan is entirely voluntary. Unfortunately, the Non-Aggression Principle is simply an idea and adherence to it is not compulsatory. It is only a set of guidelines and it has no practical application in an anarchistic society. Despite it being the very framework of anarchist philosophy, there is no guarantee of popular adherence due to the fact there is no method of enforcing or protecting it. If an individual were to break this code, the only entity to hold them accountable would be society; but as history demonstrates, society is not known to be trustworthy with abiding by ethical codes. Also, my opponent argues that my state funding plan requires the use of force. Firstly, he fails to address how this would be so. He says that “even with some type of loan system… isn't a way around this- it still initiates taxation on the citizens, just at some point in the future.” However, my plan has been described as being optional and taxes have not been included as being required. Citizens are not required to participate in this program. If my opposition can demonstrate the reason that taxation is required to initiate this plan I would be capable of providing a proper refutation but he leaves this argument extremely ambiguous. Secondly, the NAP is still only a code of ethics. It has no practical application because it is only an idea. More concrete contentions are needed in order to properly defend this position. As for the debate on whether or not minarchism is a better defended than anarchism, it has been demonstrated that anarchism is not preferable. Con argues that an “invading army would have so much more land and resources to conquer and maintain, whereas they would have less efforts in conquering a state.” Interestingly, this has already been wholly refuted. In the refortification of my position, I demonstrated that noncompliance is not a characteristic found exclusively among anarchists. In almost every one of the nations Hitler conquered, France, again, being my example, rebellious factions arose and fought against the occupying establishment. I will concede that anarchists are more likely to view conquerors as illegitimate rules, but this isn't a trait found exclusively among anarchists. Submission to rule is entirely dependent upon the will of a population. If the central authority of a minarchistic nation is defeated, noncompliance can and would likely serve as an effective form of resistance (just like anarchism). This means that managing the entire population of a minarchistic state is just as difficult as managing authority over an anarchistic one. Hierarchies Given the subjective nature of philosophical political debate, an appeal to morality should be avoided at every possible opportunity. Debates like ours are used to determine which moral standpoint is preferable; therefore, appealing to your own standard of morality to attack my position is circular reasoning. I say this because you argue that "an anarchist society would have every exchange be completely voluntary, with no one human being having political power over another. If you concede that no human has any authority over another, you concede that anarchy is morally superior." It is only the stance of anarchists that political authority is inherently amoral. To any other political philosophy it is not; so I do not concede that no human has political authority over another and this argument fails. I must also review the logical inconsistency of my opponents argument before I conclude my rebuttal. It is a very common statement among anarcho-communists that anarcho-capitalism does not qualify as anarchism due to the natural order of hierarchies associated with capitalism. Although I gainsay that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, I must concur that capitalism naturally includes hierarchies because of the way workplaces function. A CEO is above a manager and the manager is above their employees. The capitalist model of the workplace naturally entails that certain individuals be in authority over others. To argue that anarchism requires that no person is in any form of authority over another, you necessarily reject your own position and have ended this debate on your own. Thank you, Lupricona, for this debate. I always enjoy having such an immersive and thought out discussion and you have provided me with the perfect reintroduction to DDO. I hope to someday debate you again. Also, thank you to all of those viewing this debate and who will judge it. I assert that my opponent has not properly refuted my contentions and that I have thoroughly refortified them. I await Con’s response to my rebuttal but I believe my refutation of Con’s opening case is satisfactory. I have also observed a variety of grammatical errors in Con’s writing and I, therefore, insist that spelling and grammar be awarded to Pro. For these reasons, I can only ask that the judges vote for the only logical choice, Pro. Thank you and have a great day.