Anarchy

I really do not know where to begin. I am sorry but reading my opponent's post made me tired. I wrote 7,700 characters of argument only to have it completely misunderstood. I am not trying to call out my opponent right now though, he wrote a very intelligent and coherent response, albeit half of it completely relied on his horribly abusive definition of government. I would wait until tomorrow or Sunday to write up my response but I just had an hour long conversation on anarcho-capitalism as opposed to minarchism so I am in the mood to argue. Please, voters don't think that I am trying to call out my opponent, I am simply frustrated as he does not seem to understand to my argument. Since my opponent did not bring any new arguments, I will simply respond to his objections to my objections to his arguments. (P1) I responded to this argument made by my opponent very delicately. I tried as best as I could to describe the incredibly delicate relationship between consumer and manufacturer. My opponent though simply described all consumers as necessarily dirt poor peasants at the mercy of a power hungry monster who possesses all the wealth. My opponent has given me the worst possible situation I was able to show why an individual with access to resources that others need or want, is not as powerful as my opponent describes. I will respond to my opponent's objections again. He argues that even if there is a profit incentive, that does not mean that there will automatically be fair trade. This is a gross over-simplification though and I will explain why. In an anarcho-capitalist society as we are describing in this scenario, our manufacturer with access to resources that others want or need, stands to gain by keeping up a modest reputation with both the not very well off consumer whom we also described, but also with anyone else whom he wishes to trade with. While forcing the consumer to give in to his demands, the manufacturer is temporarily satisfying his own self interest. However this does not help the manufacturer in the long run as if he continues to do this to his customers, his other trade partners will be less willing to trade with him. If the manufacturer is really motivated purely by greed as my opponent has described him as, he would necessarily act in a reasonable manner so as to gain in the long term. Now if my opponent argues that if all of the manufacturers trade partners are as poor as the consumer we dealt with in more detail, let's start at a modest number of twenty people who live in the community around the manufacturer. An anarcho-capitalist society does not necessarily prevent the formation of labor unions. If the manufacturer is really putting them in the situations that my opponent describes, at what point does my opponent believe they will begin to work together to revolt against the manufacturer. Of course this is a very speculative argument, but then again so is my opponents. If they lead revolt against the manufacturer, he will have to give in to their demands of fair trade. Of course the manufacturer will do so purely out of self interest as my opponent claims. He either has the choice of killing them with his superior resources(in which case he has no labor force) or he has the choice of trading fairly with them(in which case he stands to gain in the long run from a mutually beneficial trading relationship). Of course this exhausting scenario really takes it out of me. Now to move on to my opponent's other points. (P2) My opponent argued that naturally, leaders and submitters would come out of any society. I see no problem in admitting this as it does not prove my opponent's case. Of course I did not really agree that this was probable. I simply said it "wasn't too improbable". But disregarding the useless semantics, my opponent goes on to argue that ownership of property means absolutely nothing, as one with more superior resources can simply come and take it if they please. However this runs into a problem. A person with enough resources would need to perform a cost/benefit analysis before they decide to rob some other guy. Everyone does this subconsciously before they make decisions. Should I go to the movies? Subconsciously you agree that the chance of you being murdered are low enough so that the enjoyment of the movie is worth it. Before I go to rob you I think to myself, am I gaining enough material wealth in exchange for the possible loss of life or property on my own end? We must also remember that in an anarcho-capitalist society, individuals would have the option of buying into a private defense agency. This would be completely voluntary, which is what makes it different from a government. If you come and rob me and I have bought into this defense agency I may seek aggressive action against you. If you have bought into your own defense agency you would most likely be in a breach of contract and thus necessarily vulnerable to aggressive retaliatory action taken against you. If you make a habit out of this action, much like an insurance agency, you might be dropped and thus open to private aggressive action being taken against you. (P3) In this argument my opponent again completely misinterprets my argument. He keeps creating wild scenarios where an aggressor is wildly powerful and everybody else is incredibly weak. He does not show why this is probably though. Moving past this I will refute my opponent's reasoning. He basically makes an argument from ignorance. I argued that if one gains much less than one spends when performing any sort of activity, they will most likely not perform that activity. However he claims that this reasoning "makes no sense". However the way my opponent is describing the situation it would make perfect sense. It would be like the entire U. S. government fighting a mouse for a small piece of cheese. The government wants that cheese and so does the mouse then what does the government possibly have to gain from wasting man and firepower trying to obtain this cheese when they can simply buy a pound of it at the local supermarket for $3.25? (P4) My opponent believes that privatized defense agencies merely describe a government that is run based on a system of profit. I argue that privatized defense agencies are inherently opposed to the idea of government and central leadership. Central authority vs. Multiple systems of authority This is most likely the largest difference between a government and a corporation. A government inherently has central authority over it's occupants. While in the case of the U. S. , different branches are checked by others, the state itself has authority. Final say on laws and defense is always made by the government. That is why it is a government. It is a monopoly on force and power. Corporations however are spurred by competition with other corporations. If you don't like the service of McDonalds there is always a Burger King near. There is not one central restaurant that everyone in your area must turn to for food. If you prefer homophobic chicken sandwiches you may go to Chick-Fil-A. If you prefer Frosty's you may go to Wendy's. But the final authority on where you eat is up to you alone and is not decided by one central arbitrator. Compulsion vs. Voluntary association Another large difference between a corporation and a government is how they interact with individuals. A government typically has compulsory taxation to fund itself and may also have a draft. This is the way a government runs itself. Government and compulsion cannot be separated. Corporations on the other hand are characterized by a voluntary and often times contractual relationship with customers. They do not inherently own the wealth of the people who live near them and so must provide either quality goods and services or low prices for these goods and services. I would really like to go into more detail but unfortunately I have run out of characters.